ncp-mcp-server

delete_subnet

Delete a subnet from your Naver Cloud Platform infrastructure by providing its subnet number, removing it from your VPC configuration.

Instructions

서브넷을 삭제합니다

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": {
      "subnetNo": "<subnetNo>"
    },
    "name": "delete_subnet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subnetNo`	Yes	서브넷 번호

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the subnet is deleted, without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has cascading effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a delete operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and to the point, but the extreme brevity means it lacks necessary context, though that is not penalized under this dimension.

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 that the tool performs a delete operation, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the impact (e.g., irreversibility), what happens to associated resources, or what success looks like. With no annotations or output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'subnetNo', which is described as '서브넷 번호' (subnet number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '서브넷을 삭제합니다' (Deletes the subnet) clearly states the action and resource, but it merely restates the tool name without adding any distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this delete tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_vpc, delete_acg) beyond the resource name, which is already in the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, nor does it exclude any use cases.

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