ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_get_mongodb_products

Read-only

List MongoDB server spec product codes for an image, optionally filtered by server role type such as MNGOD, ARBIT, CFGSV, or MNGOS.

Instructions

List available MongoDB server spec product codes (filterable by role type)

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": {
      "cloudMongoDbImageProductCode": "<cloudMongoDbImageProductCode>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_get_mongodb_products"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`infraResourceDetailTypeCode`	No	Filter by server role type (MNGOD \| ARBIT \| CFGSV \| MNGOS)
`cloudMongoDbImageProductCode`	Yes	MongoDB image product code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema parameter descriptions, with no mention of return format, pagination, or other operational characteristics.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filtering capability appended. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently states the output (product codes), and the schema covers parameter details. It lacks explicit mention of return structure or edge cases, but given the low complexity, the description is adequate.

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% for both parameters, each with meaningful descriptions. The description's 'filterable by role type' aligns with the schema's infraResourceDetailTypeCode but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('MongoDB server spec product codes'), and notes the filtering capability by role type. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ncloud_get_mongodb_image_products by focusing on spec product codes rather than images.

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 description implies its use when MongoDB server spec product codes are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or complementary tools.

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

Deploy Server