Mount a disk or filesystem at a specified path to make additional storage accessible on a 1Panel server. Provide path, mount point, and optional filesystem type or options.
Mount disk
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| fsType | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| mountPoint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing. It does not state permission requirements, whether the mount is persistent across reboots, what happens on failure, or side effects — all critical for a system-level mutation.
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?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. There is no structure to front-load because there is essentially no content.
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 4-parameter system-mutating disk operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly without inventing parameter semantics.
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?
Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them. path, mountPoint, fsType, and options are entirely undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to guess at formats (device path? filesystem type strings? mount option syntax?).
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?
"Mount disk" merely restates the tool name mount_disk with no additional specificity. It does convey the verb+resource pairing, which nominally distinguishes it from siblings like unmount_disk or partition_disk, but adds zero scope, target, or outcome detail.
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?
No guidance whatsoever on when to mount versus unmount_disk, partition_disk, or list_disks. No prerequisites, no preconditions (e.g. filesystem must exist), no context about which of the disk-family siblings to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.