ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo

Update SourceCommit repository settings by modifying its description and integrating File Safer or Object Storage services.

Instructions

Edit SourceCommit repository settings (description, service integrations)

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": {
      "repositoryName": "<repositoryName>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fileSafer`	No	Integrate File Safer service (true/false)
`description`	No	New repository description (0-500 bytes)
`objectStorage`	No	Integrate Object Storage service (true/false)
`repositoryName`	Yes	Name of the repository to edit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Edit' implies a mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, permission requirements, whether unspecified settings are preserved, or any output/return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It is concise, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool with several parameters and a sibling tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain that it operates by repository name (vs. ID), how the boolean integration parameters affect behavior, or what happens to unspecified settings. It is incomplete for a mutation operation with multiple parameters.

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 each parameter already described. The description adds little beyond echoing schema fields ('description, service integrations'), so it provides no substantial extra meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Edit SourceCommit repository settings') and lists the editable fields ('description, service integrations'). It is clear but does not distinguish from the sibling tool ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo_by_id, which is similarly named and could cause ambiguity.

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 edit_repo_by_id. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this tool over others.

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

Deploy Server