ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_kms_add_acl_rule

Add an IP address to a KMS key's ACL rules to allow token requests from that IP, enabling controlled access for government cloud resources.

Instructions

Add an IP address to the ACL rules for a KMS key to allow token requests from that IP.

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": {
      "keyTag": "<keyTag>",
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_kms_add_acl_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ip`	Yes	IP address to allow (e.g., '192.168.1.1' or CIDR '192.168.1.0/24')
`memo`	No	Description for this ACL rule
`keyTag`	Yes	Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key effect of allowing token requests from the specified IP. It does not disclose side effects like duplication handling or prerequisites such as IP ACL being enabled, but given the non-destructive annotation, the description adds some useful context beyond the 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 a single sentence of 14 words, with the verb and resource front-loaded. It is concise, clear, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose sufficiently. It could mention that the IP ACL must be enabled for the rule to take effect, but given the simplicity and non-destructive nature, it is largely 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including examples for 'ip' and the meaning of 'keyTag'. The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action 'Add', the resource 'ACL rules for a KMS key', and the purpose 'to allow token requests from that IP'. It distinguishes from sibling KMS ACL tools like delete/get by using the specific verb 'add' and specifying the target.

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 a clear usage context: adding an IP to allow token requests for a KMS key. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like ncloud_kms_enable_ip_acl or ncloud_kms_delete_acl_rule, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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

Deploy Server