ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_create_route_table

Create a route table in a VPC to manage routing rules. Provide the VPC number and subnet type (PUBLIC or PRIVATE), with optional name and description.

Instructions

Create a new route table 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>",
      "supportedSubnetTypeCode": "<supportedSubnetTypeCode>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_create_route_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vpcNo`	Yes	VPC number to create route table in
`routeTableName`	No	Route table name (max 30 characters)
`routeTableDescription`	No	Description for the route table
`supportedSubnetTypeCode`	Yes	Supported subnet type (PUBLIC or PRIVATE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is asynchronous or returns a resource ID, which is a notable gap for a mutating create operation.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 straightforward create operation with well-documented schema parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of return values or side effects, and the lack of an output schema places more burden on the description to clarify expected outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (vpcNo, routeTableName, routeTableDescription, supportedSubnetTypeCode) already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 'Create a new route table in a VPC' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the VPC context distinguishes it from sibling route table operations like delete or list. It is unambiguous and easily understood.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied by the verb 'Create'—use when a new route table is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server