ncp-mcp-server

create_load_balancer

Create a new load balancer to distribute incoming network traffic across servers. Specify VPC, subnets, and algorithm type (RR, LC, SIPHS) for optimal load distribution.

Instructions

새로운 로드 밸런서를 생성합니다

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": {
      "loadBalancerName": "<loadBalancerName>",
      "loadBalancerAlgorithmTypeCode": "<loadBalancerAlgorithmTypeCode>"
    },
    "name": "create_load_balancer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vpcNo`	No	VPC 번호
`subnetNoList`	No	서브넷 번호 리스트
`loadBalancerName`	Yes	로드 밸런서 이름
`loadBalancerAlgorithmTypeCode`	Yes	알고리즘 타입 (RR/LC/SIPHS)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'creates' with no information about side effects, permissions, asynchronous behavior, or what the return value looks like. This is essentially no disclosure beyond the basic operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is easy to process. However, it is under-specified, conveying only the bare fact that a load balancer is created, without any of the richness that would make it a truly effective description.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention usage context, output behavior, prerequisites (like VPC/subnet requirements), or any operational details, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the schema already provides meaningful context for each field. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficient.

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 '새로운 로드 밸런서를 생성합니다' clearly states the action (create) and target (load balancer), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not add any additional detail or nuance beyond the tool name, so it only partially differentiates from sibling creation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description simply states the action without indicating scenarios where it is appropriate, making it minimally useful for tool selection.

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