ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_nks_delete_access_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an IAM access entry from an NKS cluster to revoke access. Requires setting confirm=true to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Delete an IAM access entry from an NKS cluster. 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": {
      "clusterUuid": "<clusterUuid>",
      "accessEntryNo": "<accessEntryNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_nks_delete_access_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be true to execute
`clusterUuid`	Yes	UUID of the cluster
`accessEntryNo`	Yes	Access entry number to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructive and idempotent. The description adds the confirm=true safety guard, which is critical behavioral context. It also clarifies the target (IAM access entry) but does not disclose additional consequences beyond deletion.

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 one concise sentence with a warning icon, a clear verb+object, and a crucial execution requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the destructive warning.

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?

Given the simple deletion operation, complete schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. It handles the one non-obvious behavior (confirm guard) and does not need to detail return values since there is no 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including 'Must be true to execute' for confirm. The description reinforces this but does not add new parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an IAM access entry from an NKS cluster.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create/update/list access entries and other NKS deletion tools.

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 provides clear context for a deletion operation and explicitly states the precondition 'Set confirm=true to execute.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is self-evident.

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

Deploy Server