ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_attach_block_storage

Idempotent

Attaches a block storage volume to a server instance. Automatically waits until the storage is fully created, ensuring a successful attachment.

Instructions

Attach a block storage instance to a server. Automatically waits if the block storage is still being created (polls until status is CREAT).

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": {
      "serverInstanceNo": "<serverInstanceNo>",
      "blockStorageInstanceNo": "<blockStorageInstanceNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_attach_block_storage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serverInstanceNo`	Yes	Server instance number to attach to
`blockStorageInstanceNo`	Yes	Block storage instance number to attach

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the non-obvious polling behavior ('Automatically waits... polls until status is CREAT'), adding value beyond the annotations. It aligns with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, and no contradictions are present.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action followed by a key behavioral note. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose and the main behavioral nuance. It lacks details like timeout behavior or prerequisites, but these are not essential for the basic use case, so it is nearly complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema, the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a block storage instance to a server.' It also adds the unique behavior of waiting for creation, distinguishing it from related tools like detach, create, or delete block storage.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (attaching a block storage to a server) and even specifies the automatic waiting behavior, which guides the user on expected execution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, hence not a 5.

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

Deploy Server