ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_set_route_table_description

Idempotent

Update the description of a route table in Naver Cloud Platform Government Cloud. Provide the route table number and the new description.

Instructions

Update the description of a route table

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": {
      "routeTableNo": "<routeTableNo>",
      "routeTableDescription": "<routeTableDescription>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_set_route_table_description"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routeTableNo`	Yes	Route table number
`routeTableDescription`	Yes	New description for the route table

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not mention that the existing description is overwritten or any other side effects. With annotations present, some additional context is expected, but none is provided.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple tool with fully described parameters and supporting annotations, the description is sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that the new description replaces the existing one, but this is implied by the verb 'update' and the parameter name. Given the low complexity, the description is complete enough.

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% with clear descriptions for routeTableNo and routeTableDescription. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Update the description of a route table' uses a specific verb ('update') and clearly identifies the resource ('route table') and attribute ('description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_create_route_table, ncloud_delete_route_table, and ncloud_set_network_acl_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and description, which is minimal.

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

Deploy Server