Skip to main content
Glama
hostkey-cloud

hostkey-mcp-server

Official
by hostkey-cloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mount_iso

Mounts an ISO image on a specified Hostkey server and returns a callback key to track the asynchronous operation.

Instructions

Mount an ISO image on a server (iso/mount_iso). Async operation. Callback key returned — track with check_task. InvAPI expects iso (name or id). Pass iso, or name / iso_id aliases.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesServer ID
isoNoISO name or id (InvAPI field `iso`)
nameNoAlias: image name / iso_name → iso
iso_idNoAlias: image ID from list_iso_images → iso
confirmYesMust be true to run the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / iso
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO name or id (InvAPI field `iso`)",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "number"
+  ]
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / iso_id / description
      Previous value: -"Image ID from list_iso_images"New value: +"Alias: image ID from list_iso_images → iso"
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Image name (if identifying by name)"New value: +"Alias: image name / iso_name → iso"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"ID сервера"New value: +"Server ID"
    • changedInput schema / properties / iso_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID образа из list_iso_images"New value: +"Image ID from list_iso_images"
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Имя образа (если используется идентификация по имени)"New value: +"Image name (if identifying by name)"
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that the operation is asynchronous and returns a callback key for polling via check_task — genuinely useful behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations. It doesn't describe failure modes or preconditions (e.g., ISO must exist).

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 async behavior, then parameter hints — no filler. The final alias sentence partially repeats the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

Covers the two things an agent most needs for a mount operation: that it's async and how to follow up. With no output schema, the callback-key note substitutes adequately; only preconditions and error behavior remain undocumented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, iso, name, iso_id and confirm. The description restates the InvAPI field name and alias mapping, adding only marginal clarification about which parameter takes precedence.

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+resource ('Mount an ISO image on a server') and even names the API path iso/mount_iso. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling unmount_iso, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent this is async and that the returned callback key should be tracked with check_task, which is actionable context. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when an ISO is already mounted, or to use unmount_iso instead).

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