ncp-mcp-server

add_acg_rule

Add an inbound rule to a Naver Cloud Platform Access Control Group by specifying the ACG number, protocol type, and optional IP block and port range.

Instructions

ACG에 인바운드 규칙을 추가합니다

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "accessControlGroupNo": "<accessControlGroupNo>",
      "protocolTypeCode": "<protocolTypeCode>"
    },
    "name": "add_acg_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ipBlock`	No	IP 블록 (예: 0.0.0.0/0)
`portRange`	No	포트 범위 (예: 80, 1-65535)
`protocolTypeCode`	Yes	프로토콜 타입 (TCP/UDP/ICMP)
`accessControlGroupNo`	Yes	ACG 번호

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only says 'adds an inbound rule' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word earns its place. It is not over-specified, just appropriately terse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is sparse. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not mention return values, prerequisites, or any behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('adds') and the target ('inbound rule to ACG'), using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and, while it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, there are no other rule-related tools among the siblings to confuse it with.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the function without contextualizing it in a decision process.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.