TrueNAS Core MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action of updating ACLs, which implies a mutation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., data access impacts), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bullet-point-like list of parameters with brief explanations. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of updating ACLs (a mutation with security implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed, effects), output format, and error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for all parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'dataset' as a path with an example, 'acl_entries' as a list with permissions, and clarifies the boolean flags 'recursive' and 'strip_acl'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail the structure of ACL entries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'dataset Access Control Lists (ACLs)', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_dataset_permissions' or 'get_dataset_permissions', which likely handle related but different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_dataset_permissions' or 'get_dataset_permissions'. It lists parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for updating ACLs, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.