Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_create_acg

Manage network security by creating an Access Control Group (ACG) in a VPC. Provide the VPC number and optional name/description to set up the group.

Instructions

Create a new Access Control Group in a VPC

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": {
      "vpcNo": "<vpcNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_create_acg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vpcNoYesVPC number to create ACG in (required)
accessControlGroupNameNoName for the new ACG (3-30 chars, lowercase letters + numbers + '-', starts with letter, ends with letter or number). Auto-generated if omitted.
accessControlGroupDescriptionNoDescription for the ACG (0-1000 bytes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description is minimal but consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=false). It adds the context that the ACG is created within a VPC but does not disclose post-creation state (e.g., initially empty rules) or return format, which the agent must infer.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, earning a top score for efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple create tool, the description is clear and the schema covers all parameters, but the absence of any note about the response structure or initial ACG state leaves moderate gaps. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including naming constraints for accessControlGroupName. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the explicit resource 'Access Control Group' and scoping 'in a VPC', clearly distinguishing it from sibling ACG tools like list_acgs or add_acg_inbound_rule.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating a Network ACL or adding rules to an existing ACG. The description lacks prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing VPC) though vpcNo is marked required in the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools