ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_kms_update_key_name

Idempotent

Update the name of a KMS key by providing its unique key tag and a new key name, which must be 3-15 characters and start with a letter.

Instructions

Update the name of a KMS key.

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>",
      "keyName": "<keyName>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_kms_update_key_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyTag`	Yes	Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name
`keyName`	Yes	New key name (3-15 chars, alphanumeric + '-' + '_', must start with letter)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not clarify that only the display name changes and the underlying key material remains unaffected, nor does it explain the relationship between keyTag and keyName during a rename.

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, compact sentence with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple operation with 2 parameters and helpful schema/annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits useful context about side effects (e.g., whether the key tag changes, whether references remain valid) and does not explain the derivation of keyTag from keyName, which could confuse an agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (keyTag and keyName) with clear definitions, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, relying entirely on 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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (the name of a KMS key). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like ncloud_kms_update_memo or ncloud_kms_update_rotation_period by targeting the key name itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only updates the name, nor does it reference related tools or prerequisites such as how to obtain the keyTag.

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

Deploy Server