ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_dns_apply_domain

Idempotent

Apply pending DNS changes to a Global DNS domain to publish updated records. Resolve discrepancies by pushing staged modifications live.

Instructions

Apply pending changes to a Global DNS domain (publish DNS records)

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": {
      "domainId": "<domainId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_dns_apply_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domainId`	Yes	Domain ID to apply

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral context that this is a 'publish' action that makes pending changes live, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of ten words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero redundant information and is 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core operation (applying/publishing changes) while relying on schema and annotations for parameter and safety details. A minor gap is not defining 'pending changes', but sibling tools make this inferable.

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 the parameter 'domainId' described as 'Domain ID to apply'. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and clearly identifies the resource ('pending changes to a Global DNS domain') with a clarifying parenthetical ('publish DNS records'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling DNS operations like list, create, delete, and rollback, which focus on different actions.

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 phrase 'apply pending changes' implies this tool is used after making DNS record edits, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks clear context such as 'use after create/update/delete records' or exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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

Deploy Server