ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_label

Idempotent

Update labels on a node pool in an NKS cluster by replacing all existing labels with the provided key-value pairs.

Instructions

Update labels on a node pool in an NKS cluster (PUT replaces all labels)

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>",
      "instanceNo": "<instanceNo>",
      "labels": "<labels>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	Yes	Label key/value pairs
`instanceNo`	Yes	Node pool instance number
`clusterUuid`	Yes	UUID of the cluster

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'PUT replaces all labels'. This warns the agent that existing labels will be overwritten, which is important despite destructiveHint=false. The idempotentHint=true is consistent with PUT semantics, and the description adds value by clarifying the replacement behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a critical behavioral note. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple scope (update labels), the description combined with full schema coverage and annotations provides sufficient context. It clearly states the operation and the full-replacement behavior. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor omission: no guidance on empty labels behavior, but not essential.

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 all three parameters (clusterUuid, instanceNo, labels) with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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 ('labels on a node pool in an NKS cluster'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_node_pool_taint or update_node_pool. The target and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to update node pool labels), but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. No mention of related tools for taints or other node pool properties.

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

Deploy Server