ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_kms_delete_token_generator

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a KMS key's token generator to invalidate all existing tokens. Requires setting confirm=true to execute this destructive operation.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Delete (deactivate) the token generator for a KMS key. All existing tokens will be invalidated. 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": {
      "keyTag": "<keyTag>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_kms_delete_token_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyTag`	Yes	Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name (required)
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'All existing tokens will be invalidated' and 'Set confirm=true to execute.' It explains the side effect and the confirmation mechanism, which are critical for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the destructive warning and provide essential usage information without extraneous detail. The structure is efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description covers purpose, effect, and required confirmation. The annotations already declare destructiveHint, so the safety profile is complete without needing an output schema.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's instruction to 'Set confirm=true' reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose but adds little new information beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Delete (deactivate)' and the target 'token generator for a KMS key', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/get token generator. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 makes the usage context clear: deleting/deactivating a token generator, and it warns about token invalidation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the lifecycle context is clear enough for an agent to select this over create/update.

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

Deploy Server