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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_get_network_acl_rules

Read-only

List inbound and outbound rules for a Network ACL, optionally filtered by rule type, to review network access permissions.

Instructions

List all inbound and outbound rules for a specific Network ACL

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": {
      "networkAclNo": "<networkAclNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_get_network_acl_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkAclNoYesNetwork ACL number
networkAclRuleTypeCodeNoFilter by rule type (INBND, OTBND)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already covers safety. The description adds that it lists both inbound and outbound rules and requires a specific ACL. It does not disclose behavior like pagination, response format, or defaults, but the annotation lowers the burden. No contradictions.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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 read-only list operation with low parameter complexity and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but these are expected for a list tool. Overall, it gives enough context for correct usage.

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 networkAclNo and networkAclRuleTypeCode described. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 the tool lists all inbound and outbound rules for a specific Network ACL. This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Network ACL rules'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/remove rule tools and get_network_acl_detail.

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 implies usage: call this when you need the rules for a specific Network ACL, identified by networkAclNo. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use ncloud_get_network_acl_detail for ACL properties), but the context is clear enough for selection.

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