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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_delete_route_table

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a route table from Naver Cloud Gov. Requires confirm=true to execute; otherwise, no deletion occurs.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Permanently delete a route table. Set confirm=true to execute.

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": {
      "routeTableNo": "<routeTableNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_delete_route_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute the destructive operation
routeTableNoYesRoute table number to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructive and idempotent, but the description adds the critical safety behavior that confirm=true is required to execute. It also emphasizes permanence, which goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent understand the risk before invoking.

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 sentence with a warning emoji, front-loading the destructive nature and action. It is concise and free of redundancy.

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 delete operation with two parameters and annotations, the description covers the purpose, destructive nature, and confirmation requirement. It lacks notes on side effects or prerequisites, but given the simple scope and annotation support, it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented (routeTableNo and confirm). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient detail, so 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 'Permanently delete a route table' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling route table management tools like create or add-route tools. The destructive warning prefix reinforces the action.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites like detaching subnets first or conditions preventing deletion. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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