Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_sourcebuild_list_runtime_versions

Read-only

List available runtime versions for a specific OS and runtime in SourceBuild. Provide OS ID and runtime type ID to get the options.

Instructions

List available runtime versions for a specific OS and runtime in SourceBuild

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": {
      "osId": "<osId>",
      "runtimeId": "<runtimeId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_sourcebuild_list_runtime_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
osIdYesOS ID (from list_os)
runtimeIdYesRuntime type ID (from list_runtimes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' aligns with a read operation. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, auth requirements, rate limits) are disclosed, but the lack of side effects makes this acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy or wasted words.

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 read-only list operation, the combination of schema, annotation, and description is sufficient. Though no output schema exists, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the expected return type (a list of versions).

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 described and cross-referenced to source tools. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, which already provides sufficient guidance on parameter origins.

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 the action (list), resource (runtime versions), and scope (for a specific OS and runtime in SourceBuild). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_os and list_runtimes, 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 implies the tool is used after obtaining an OS and runtime ID, as it requires both parameters. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, though sibling differentiation is inherent in the scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools