ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo_by_id

Edit SourceCommit repository settings by ID, updating description and enabling File Safer or Object Storage integrations.

Instructions

Edit SourceCommit repository settings by ID (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": {
      "repositoryId": "<repositoryId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the edit action without explaining whether updates are partial or full, whether permissions are required, or how unspecified fields are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that directly states the action and target. It is concise with no unnecessary information.

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 description is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It omits critical behavioral details, such as whether unspecified settings are preserved, and provides no usage context or comparison with sibling tools. An agent would struggle to anticipate the tool's full effects.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'description, service integrations' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool edits SourceCommit repository settings by ID, and lists the specific settings (description, service integrations). The 'by ID' phrasing helps distinguish it from the name-based sibling edit_repo, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

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 ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo or other alternatives. The 'by ID' implication is the only hint, but there is no explicit 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