ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_put_object

Upload an object to a Naver Cloud Object Storage bucket, specifying bucket, key, and content. Optionally preview with dryRun before committing.

Instructions

Upload (put) an object to an Object Storage bucket. Use dryRun=true to preview.

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": {
      "bucketName": "<bucketName>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_put_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Object key (path) to upload to
`body`	Yes	Content to upload as the object body
`dryRun`	No	If true, returns a preview without actually uploading
`bucketName`	Yes	Name of the bucket
`contentType`	No	Content-Type header for the object (e.g., 'text/plain', 'application/json')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions dryRun preview but omits critical details for an upload operation, such as overwriting behavior, required permissions, or the effect on existing objects. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No extraneous words, and the dryRun hint is placed as a useful secondary note.

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?

For an upload tool with five schemas-described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not dangerously incomplete. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., bucket existence) and return-value context, but the schema covers the parameter meanings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds 'Use dryRun=true to preview,' which is redundant with the schema's dryRun explanation and does not clarify other parameters like body encoding or contentType.

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-resource pair ('Upload (put) an object to an Object Storage bucket') and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_object, delete_object, and list_objects. It also notes the dryRun preview, which is a clear behavioral scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_object, initiate_multipart_upload, or upload_part. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server