ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_ncr_delete_registry

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a container registry and destroy all its images and tags. Confirm with confirm=true to execute this destructive action.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Permanently delete a container registry. All images and tags will be destroyed. 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": {
      "registryName": "<registryName>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_ncr_delete_registry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation
`registryName`	Yes	Name of the registry to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: 'Permanently delete', 'All images and tags will be destroyed', and 'Set confirm=true to execute'. This goes beyond the structured annotations by explaining the blast radius and the confirmation safeguard.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: a destructive warning, the core action, and the prerequisite confirm flag. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destruction, permanence, impact on images/tags, and the confirm requirement. It lacks nuances like idempotency or post-delete behavior, but those are either annotated or minor.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions confirm=true but only restates what the schema says ('Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation'), adding no new semantic information.

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 'Permanently delete a container registry' with the specific resource and action. It also clarifies the scope by saying 'All images and tags will be destroyed', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_ncr_delete_image and ncloud_ncr_delete_tag.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deleting individual images or tags. It only instructs setting confirm=true to execute, which is a parameter usage detail rather than tool selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server