ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_detach_policy_from_group

DestructiveIdempotent

Detach an IAM policy from a group; set confirm=true to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Remove an IAM policy from a group. 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": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>",
      "policyId": "<policyId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_detach_policy_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute
`groupId`	Yes	Group ID
`policyId`	Yes	Policy ID to detach

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?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds the critical behavior that confirm must be set to true for execution, acting as a safety guard. The ⚠️ Destructive label also reinforces the destructive nature, providing useful context beyond the structured annotation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that deliver the key warning and the necessary execution flag. It is front-loaded with the destructive warning and contains no redundant 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 detach operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, the destructive nature, and the confirm requirement. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but these are unnecessary given the simplicity and schema coverage.

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 description covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the confirm parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions for groupId and policyId. It provides minimal added value for parameter understanding.

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: 'Remove an IAM policy from a group.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name aligns perfectly. It is easily distinguished from siblings like attach_policy_to_group or detach_policy_from_sub_account by naming the exact operation.

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 by stating the operational requirement 'Set confirm=true to execute,' which is essential for safe usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the tool name and existing sibling structure make the use case obvious.

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

Deploy Server