ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_pca_delete_ca

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a Private CA in DESTROYING status. Irreversibly destroys the CA's private key. Requires confirm=true to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Permanently delete a Private CA. Only CAs in DESTROYING status can be deleted. The CA's private key will be permanently destroyed and cannot be recovered. 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": {
      "caTag": "<caTag>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_pca_delete_ca"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caTag`	Yes	CA tag value (required)
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the irreversibility ('private key will be permanently destroyed and cannot be recovered') and the requirement for confirm=true. This adds significant behavioral context about the consequences and execution guardrail.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with a clear destructive warning. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a destructive delete operation, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, the status prerequisite, the irreversible consequence, and the confirmation requirement. No additional critical information appears missing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents caTag and confirm precisely. The description reinforces 'Set confirm=true to execute' but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 Private CA', identifying the specific action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling PCA operations by noting the status requirement and the confirm flag, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear precondition: 'Only CAs in DESTROYING status can be deleted.' It also instructs to set confirm=true to execute. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or discuss alternatives, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server