Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@krovacloud/mcp

@krovacloud/mcp

Official
by krovacloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create TCP Mapping

create_tcp_mapping

Exposes a Cube TCP port on the host, optionally restricting access by IP or CIDR, to make in-Cube services reachable while controlling connections.

Instructions

Expose a Cube TCP port on the host, optionally restricted to specific IPs/CIDRs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cubeIdYesThe Cube id to operate on.
spaceIdNoKrova Cloud Space id. Optional if KROVA_SPACE_ID is set as the server default.
cubePortYesThe in-Cube port to expose.
udpEnabledNoWhether to also forward UDP traffic on the same host port, in addition to TCP. UDP is forwarded by default — leave this unset to get UDP forwarding, and only pass false to disable it.
whitelistIpsNoDeprecated alias for whitelistedIps. Accepted so existing agent prompts keep working; prefer whitelistedIps.
whitelistedIpsNoOptional IP/CIDR allow-list restricting who can reach the mapping.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / udpEnabled
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether to also forward UDP traffic on the same host port, in addition to TCP. UDP is forwarded by default — leave this unset to get UDP forwarding, and only pass false to disable it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.6

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the exposure happens on the host and can be IP-restricted, but omits that UDP forwarding is on by default, whether repeated calls create duplicate mappings, and what is returned. Given annotation coverage, this is an adequate but thin addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though so terse that no room is used for the operational caveats a create-exposure tool warrants.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutating network-exposure tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the whitelist option but leaves out the spaceId default behavior, UDP-on-by-default consequence, and failure modes. Rich schema and annotations carry much of the load, making it minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 all six parameters including the deprecated whitelistIps alias and the udpEnabled default are already documented in the schema. The description's 'optionally restricted to specific IPs/CIDRs' only restates whitelistedIps. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Expose a Cube TCP port on the host') plus the scope qualifier 'optionally restricted to specific IPs/CIDRs'. It is unambiguous what the tool creates, though it never names the sibling it complements (list_tcp_mappings / delete_tcp_mapping) or contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no mention of prerequisites (a running Cube, a spaceId or KROVA_SPACE_ID default), no note about host-port conflicts or what happens if the mapping already exists, and no routing to list_tcp_mappings to check existing mappings first. The only usage hint is embedded in the phrase 'optionally restricted'.

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