ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_accept_reject_vpc_peering

Accept or reject a pending VPC Peering request by instance number, specifying true to accept or false to reject.

Instructions

Accept or reject a pending VPC Peering request

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": {
      "vpcPeeringInstanceNo": "<vpcPeeringInstanceNo>",
      "isAccept": "<isAccept>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_accept_reject_vpc_peering"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`isAccept`	Yes	true to accept, false to reject the peering request
`vpcPeeringInstanceNo`	Yes	VPC Peering instance number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a mutating action (accept/reject), but does not disclose any consequences, reversibility, or permission requirements. The action itself is simple, but the description adds little beyond the name and schema.

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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with no redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple, and the schema fully documents both parameters. The description covers the action and adds the 'pending' requirement. While there is no output schema, for a binary accept/reject action the lack of return value documentation is acceptable. It is complete enough for typical use.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions (isAccept: true to accept, false to reject; vpcPeeringInstanceNo: VPC Peering instance number). The tool description adds only the 'pending' context, which is already implied by the word 'pending' in the description. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 (accept or reject), the resource (VPC Peering request), and the condition (pending). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create/delete/describe peering by focusing on the response to a pending request.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'pending VPC Peering request' provides clear context that this tool is for responding to requests in a specific state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to know when to use it.

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

Deploy Server