Skip to main content
Glama
hostkey-cloud-ru

hostkey-mcp-server-ru

Official
by hostkey-cloud-ru
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_static_nat

Creates a static DNAT to expose a server's IPMI over a public IP for classic IPMI access; use ip_acl when required and check_task for async status.

Instructions

Создать статический DNAT до IPMI сервера (nat/add_static_nat): публичный IP для классического IPMI. Это не Secure IPMI Proxy в ЛК — Active Proxy сам по себе может не удовлетворять вызов. Асинхронно; статус через check_task. При server_ipmi_acl_required передайте ip_acl.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID сервера
ttlNoВремя жизни NAT в секундах, если поддерживается
ip_aclNoIP клиента(ов), с которых разрешён доступ к IPMI через NAT (InvAPI ip_acl). Нужен на части аккаунтов, если ACL Proxy из ЛК недостаточно.
confirmYesMust be true to run the operation.
securedNoФлаг secured NAT, если поддерживается InvAPI

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / ip_acl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "IP клиента(ов), с которых разрешён доступ к IPMI через NAT (InvAPI ip_acl). Нужен на части аккаунтов, если ACL Proxy из ЛК недостаточно.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / secured
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Флаг secured NAT, если поддерживается InvAPI"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ttl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Время жизни NAT в секундах, если поддерживается",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию."New value: +"Must be true to run the operation."
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write profile is covered; the description adds the important behavioral fact that the operation is asynchronous and status must be polled via check_task. It also warns that this is a distinct product path from Secure IPMI Proxy and flags the conditional ip_acl requirement. It does not say what happens if a NAT already exists or how the create interacts with existing entries.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the distinguishing note, then the async behavior, then the parameter condition — each sentence carries information. Slightly dense with the Secure IPMI Proxy aside, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: asynchronous execution with check_task polling and the conditional ip_acl. Missing is what the tool returns (task id? NAT address?) and re-run/idempotency behavior, but the agent can call it correctly from what is given.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds a conditional rule not in the schema: when server_ipmi_acl_required applies, pass ip_acl. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema, though the other parameters (ttl, secured) get no additional treatment.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a static DNAT to the server's IPMI) and anchors it to the API endpoint nat/add_static_nat. It also distinguishes the result from Secure IPMI Proxy in the control panel, so the agent understands this yields a public IP for classic IPMI. It does not name sibling tools like remove_static_nat or clear_static_nat, so differentiation is by concept rather than by tool.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: you need a public IP for classic IPMI (as opposed to Secure IPMI Proxy, which the Active Proxy may not satisfy). It also states the conditional case for ip_acl via server_ipmi_acl_required. It stops short of pointing at the removal/cleanup siblings (remove_static_nat, clear_static_nat, drop_nat).

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