Skip to main content
Glama

put_storage_partition_id_check

Starts a file system check (fsck) on a partition specified by ID. Track progress through the partition's operation_pct field.

Instructions

Checks the partition with the given id To be able to check a partition you need to provide the following parameters (JSON encoded): NOTE: once started you can monitor the fsck process getting the partition information (see DiskPartition operation_pct field)

Error codes: not_found, invalid_disk, is_a_partition, is_internal, op_not_supported, op_failed, disk_busy

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id__pathYes(Path parameter)
idNounique partition id
disk_idNorelated disk id
stateNoValues: `error`: Partition has error; `checking`: Partition check in progress; `formatting`: Partition format in progress; `mounting`: Partition mount in progress; `maintenance`: Partition is in maintenance mode; `mounted`: Partition is ready; `umounting`: Partition umount in progress; `umounted`: Partition is umounted; `ejecting`: Partition ejection in progress
fstypeNo
labelNopartition name
pathNopartition mount point (encoded in base64 as explained in fs API)
total_bytesNopartition size (in bytes)
used_bytesNopartition used space (in bytes)
free_bytesNopartition free space (in bytes)
fsck_resultNofsck result — Values: `no_run_yet`: Partition has not been checked yet; `running`: Check is in progress; `fs_clean`: File system is ok; `fs_corrected`: File system was corrected; `fs_needs_correction`: File system need correction; `failed`: File system has unrecoverable error
operation_pctNopartition operation progress

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 burden. It mentions error codes and monitoring via operation_pct, but lacks disclosure on prerequisites (e.g., partition state), side effects, or permissions. The description is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short but lacks structure. It combines purpose, a note, and error codes in an unorganized way. It is concise but could be better structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, output schema existence), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values or provide sufficient context for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 92%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, just a vague note about providing parameters JSON encoded. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks a partition by id. The verb and resource are clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_storage_partition_id or put_storage_partition_id.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about monitoring the fsck process is a minor hint but does not provide when/when-not to use or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Nelson-PROIA/freebox-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server