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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_kms_update_memo

Idempotent

Update the memo or description of a KMS key with new content up to 100 characters.

Instructions

Update the memo/description 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>",
      "memo": "<memo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_kms_update_memo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoYesNew memo content (0-100 chars)
keyTagYesKey tag - unique identifier derived from key name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., constraints, side effects, prerequisites) beyond restating the action, so it provides minimal value beyond the structured data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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 two-parameter update tool with annotations and a clear schema, the description is functional but lacks usage context, alternatives, or return-value information. It does not obstruct understanding but is not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states about 'memo' and 'keyTag', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('memo/description of a KMS key'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling KMS tools like update_key_name and update_rotation_period, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: it should be used to update the memo field of a KMS key. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided relative to other KMS update tools.

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