ncp-mcp-server

create_server

Creates a new server instance on Naver Cloud Platform using server name, image product code, and server product code. Optionally specifies VPC, subnet, login key, and instance count.

Instructions

새로운 서버 인스턴스를 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": {
      "serverName": "<serverName>",
      "serverImageProductCode": "<serverImageProductCode>",
      "serverProductCode": "<serverProductCode>"
    },
    "name": "create_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vpcNo`	No	VPC 번호
`subnetNo`	No	서브넷 번호
`serverName`	Yes	서버 이름
`loginKeyName`	No	로그인 키 이름
`serverCreateCount`	No	생성할 서버 개수 (기본값: 1)
`serverProductCode`	Yes	서버 상품 코드
`serverImageProductCode`	Yes	서버 이미지 상품 코드

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. It discloses nothing beyond the basic create action—no mention of required VPC/subnet dependencies, provisioning time, billing implications, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant content, and the structure is as concise as possible for a simple creation action.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., VPC, subnet, login key), execution semantics (synchronous vs asynchronous), and what the response contains. The schema covers parameters but not operational context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states '새로운 서버 인스턴스를 생성합니다' (creates a new server instance), which is a specific verb plus resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers, delete_server, and create_load_balancer.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. With many sibling create/list/delete tools, some usage direction is needed but absent.

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