Skip to main content
Glama
hostkey-cloud

hostkey-mcp-server

Official
by hostkey-cloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_network_status

Read-only

Retrieve a server's network interface status, including port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, and link state; specify an optional port to check one interface.

Instructions

Server network interface status (net/get_status): port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, link status. Optional port limits the query to one interface (useful when another NIC has no upstream_id).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesServer ID
portNoOptional physical/logical interface or switch port (e.g. eth0). Omit to query all; if InvAPI fails on an unmapped NIC, retry with a mapped port from get_server.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / port
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional physical/logical interface or switch port (e.g. eth0). Omit to query all; if InvAPI fails on an unmapped NIC, retry with a mapped port from get_server.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"ID сервера"New value: +"Server ID"
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations covering safety, the description adds value by enumerating the fields returned and noting a behavioral quirk: another NIC may lack an upstream_id. It does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or permissions, but the added return-value context is substantial beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the purpose and returned fields, and the second provides a specific, actionable usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete for this tool. It lists return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, though it could mention error behavior or upstream_id implications more explicitly. Still, it provides all essential context for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about `port` limiting the query to one interface (useful when another NIC has no upstream_id) largely repeats information already present in the schema's `port` description, adding no new semantic detail.

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 it retrieves server network interface status and lists the specific fields returned (port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, link status). It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but no sibling appears to perform a similar network-status retrieval, so an agent can still easily identify its purpose.

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 offers a usage hint for the optional `port` parameter ('useful when another NIC has no upstream_id'), which implies when to use that parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other network-related tools like `get_port_graphs` or `get_server`), leaving overall usage guidance implicit.

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