ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_remove_server_image_sharing

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke sharing permissions for a server image from specified target login IDs. This destructive action requires explicit confirmation to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Remove sharing permission for a server image. 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": {
      "serverImageNo": "<serverImageNo>",
      "targetLoginIdList": "<targetLoginIdList>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_remove_server_image_sharing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation
`serverImageNo`	Yes	Server image number to remove sharing from
`targetLoginIdList`	Yes	List of target login IDs to revoke sharing permission

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?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description's '⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE' repeats the destructive hint without adding new context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what exactly gets affected. The confirm=true instruction is already in the schema. Therefore no behavioral info beyond annotations.

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?

One sentence with a clear warning and instruction, front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given its simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose and confirmation mechanism. However, it omits context such as required ownership/ACL permissions, reversibility, and any alternate tool guidance. For a destructive action, this is a notable gap, though annotations partially compensate.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reiterating the confirm=true requirement, which the schema already specifies.

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 states 'Remove sharing permission for a server image' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from add/set operations and from the member-server-image variant by naming 'server image' in the description.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_remove_member_server_image_sharing or ncloud_add_server_image_sharing. The description only mentions the confirm flag, which is a parameter instruction, not tool selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server