Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ugreen-nas

ugreen-nas

by xudong7587
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ugreen_nas_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Queries NAS storage volumes, pools, disks, containers, images, Compose projects, installed apps, and task manager status without changing settings or starting/stopping services.

Instructions

查询存储卷/池/磁盘、容器/镜像/Compose、已装应用和任务管理器状态。不会启停服务或改 NAS 设置。容器最多一页 100 项，进程/服务返回 CPU 排序前 20 项；旧固件可能不支持部分命令。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "section": "<section>"
    },
    "name": "ugreen_nas_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantive behavior the annotations do not cover: a 100-item container page cap, process/service results truncated to the top 20 sorted by CPU, and possible command failures on older firmware. These are exactly the result-shape and compatibility caveats an agent needs to interpret truncated output correctly.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with scope, followed by exclusions and then operational caveats; there is no filler and none of the sentences duplicates the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only aggregator with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, result truncation limits, and firmware compatibility, which is most of what is needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is what each section returns and what 'overview' contains, so an agent cannot fully anticipate response shape.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With a single required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantics, and it does enumerate content areas that correspond to most enum values (volumes, pools, disks, containers, images, compose, apps, processes/services). However it never explains the 'overview' section or states that section is required and mutually exclusive, leaving part of the enum unmapped.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description pairs a specific verb (查询/query) with an enumerated resource list (storage volumes/pools/disks, containers/images/Compose, installed apps, task manager status) that maps almost one-to-one onto the section enum. The negative scope statement (不会启停服务或改 NAS 设置) separates it from the execute/command tool in the sibling set, so an agent can identify what this tool is and is not without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly sets the usage context as read-only inspection of NAS state and explicitly excludes service control and settings changes, which tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g. the execute tool for actions), so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools