Discover all filesystems known to OpenMediaVault, including unmounted ones, to inspect storage configuration.
All filesystems OMV knows about (mounted or not).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_filesystems"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful nuance by noting that both mounted and unmounted filesystems are included, which is not obvious from the name. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it may be slow, or any authorization requirements, though the read-only nature is likely implied by the name.
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 a single, tight clause that conveys the essential scope in fewer than ten words. Every word adds information: 'All' indicates completeness, 'OMV knows about' limits to system-known filesystems, and 'mounted or not' clarifies inclusion criteria.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the tool returns (all filesystems) but not the structure of the result items or any potential caveats. Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail on return values would improve completeness, though the tool's simplicity partially compensates.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information.
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 identifies the resource (filesystems) and scope (all known to OMV, both mounted and unmounted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_disks and list_block_devices by focusing on filesystems rather than physical devices. The only weakness is that the description lacks an explicit verb, but the name conveys the action.
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 such as list_disks or list_block_devices. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to siblings, so users/agents must infer appropriateness from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.