Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Container Mount

manage_container_mount
DestructiveIdempotent

Add or remove a container volume mount on a MikroTik router, with idempotent name-based checks and dry-run previews to prevent path conflicts.

Instructions

Add or remove a container volume mount. Idempotent by name: add returns already_exists if the mount exists with matching src/dst; throws CONFLICT if name exists with different paths.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dstNoContainer destination path (required for add)
srcNoHost source path (required for add)
nameYesMount name — idempotency key
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
confirmationTokenNoToken from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Preview changes without applying"New value: +"Preview changes without applying."
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "routerId",
-  "action",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "name"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by concretizing what idempotency means: already_exists on matching src/dst, CONFLICT on name collision with different paths. That is genuine added value beyond the bare hints, though it omits the confirmation flow and dryRun semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the idempotency rule follows immediately.

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 destructive mutation tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description supplies the key idempotency/conflict contract. It stops short of noting the two-step confirmation token flow, though that is documented in the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description only references src/dst indirectly ('matching src/dst') and adds no syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add/remove) and resource (container volume mount), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_container_mounts, manage_container_config, and manage_container_env. An agent can identify the operation 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage via 'Add or remove' but never states when to pick add vs remove, when to prefer list_container_mounts first, or any prerequisites. No alternatives are named or excluded, leaving routing 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