ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_nks_create_access_entry

Create an IAM access entry for an NKS cluster to grant IAM principals access. Only cluster UUID is required; principal ARN, access entry type, and Kubernetes groups are optional.

Instructions

Create an IAM access entry for an NKS cluster

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": {
      "clusterUuid": "<clusterUuid>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_nks_create_access_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Access entry type
`clusterUuid`	Yes	UUID of the cluster
`principalArn`	No	IAM principal ARN
`kubernetesGroups`	No	Kubernetes groups

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint: false, which is trivial for a create operation. The description does not add behavioral context such as auth requirements, idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. No contradiction is present, but the description adds nothing 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a create operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., existing cluster), what constitutes a valid 'type' or 'principalArn', or what the expected result is (e.g., returns an access entry object). The rich NKS access-control context is not conveyed.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but also does not need to compensate, placing it at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('IAM access entry') and target ('NKS cluster'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update/delete/list access entries, making the intent immediately clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that the cluster must already exist). The description simply states the action without contextualizing it against related operations.

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

Deploy Server