ncp-mcp-server

create_vpc

Create a new Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) on Naver Cloud Platform by providing a VPC name and IPv4 CIDR block.

Instructions

새로운 VPC를 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": {
      "vpcName": "<vpcName>",
      "ipv4CidrBlock": "<ipv4CidrBlock>"
    },
    "name": "create_vpc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vpcName`	Yes	VPC 이름
`ipv4CidrBlock`	Yes	IPv4 CIDR 블록 (예: 10.0.0.0/16)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is minimal and lacks structure beyond the basic statement, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain expected outcomes, resource provisioning details, or any constraints, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 already documents both parameters (vpcName, ipv4CidrBlock) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 VPC를 생성합니다' clearly states the action (create) and resource (VPC), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_vpc and list_vpcs. However, it lacks any scope or additional nuance that would elevate it to a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_subnet, and no prerequisites or conditions are mentioned. It is entirely silent on usage context.

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