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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_nks_set_ip_acl

Idempotent

Configure IP ACL entries for an NKS cluster to restrict API server access by allowing or denying specific IP addresses or CIDR blocks.

Instructions

Configure IP ACL for an NKS cluster to restrict API server access

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>",
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_nks_set_ip_acl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesYesIP ACL entries
clusterUuidYesUUID of the cluster

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description does not disclose whether the provided entries replace the entire ACL list or are merged, nor any other behavioral side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a configuration setter.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations providing idempotence/safety info, the description is mostly adequate. The main missing piece is whether the ACL entries replace or append to existing rules, and there's no mention of expected output/return behavior, though the latter is less critical.

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 has 100% description coverage: clusterUuid, entries, action, and address are all described. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents, but this is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Configure' with a clear resource ('IP ACL for an NKS cluster') and states the purpose ('restrict API server access'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ncloud_nks_get_ip_acl, which retrieves the configuration.

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?

The description clearly implies this tool is used to set IP restrictions on a cluster's API server. It does not explicitly state when to use this over get_ip_acl or mention exclusions/alternatives, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.

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