omv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

smart_status

Check the S.M.A.R.T. health status of every storage device on an OpenMediaVault NAS to spot potential drive failures before they cause data loss.

Instructions

S.M.A.R.T. overview per device (overall health status, from OMV).

Tool call template

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": "smart_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the source (OMV) and scope (per-device overall health), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any limitations. For a status tool, more transparency about the return shape would be valuable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it names the domain (S.M.A.R.T.), the scope (per device), the result (overall health status), and the source (OMV). No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the essential purpose and data source, making it minimally viable. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling smart_health tool and does not describe the return value structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is fully documented. The description's mention of 'per device' is slightly ambiguous without a device parameter, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and no further parameter semantics are required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a S.M.A.R.T. overview with overall health status per device, sourced from OMV. This is specific enough, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool smart_health, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smart_health, smart_attributes, or smart_selftest_log. The phrase 'overview per device' implies a broad status-check use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not or reference to sibling tools.

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