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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information about a specific SourceCommit repository by supplying its repository ID. Provides essential repository metadata.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific SourceCommit repository by ID

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_get_repo_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repositoryIdYesRepository ID (from repository list)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the context of 'detailed information' but does not disclose return format, potential errors, or other behavioral nuances. It provides minimal additional value beyond the 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and scannable.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning what 'detailed information' includes or how this tool differs from ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo, given the ambiguity in the sibling set.

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%: repositoryId is described as 'Repository ID (from repository list)'. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('SourceCommit repository'), and the scope ('by ID'). The 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo, which presumably fetches by a different identifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool should be used when the agent has a repository ID (since it says 'by ID'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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