ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos

Read-only

List SourceCommit repositories on Naver Cloud Government, with optional name filtering and pagination to navigate results.

Instructions

List all SourceCommit repositories. Supports filtering by name and pagination.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pageNo`	No	Page number (1-N, default: 1)
`pageSize`	No	Number of items per page (1-N, displays entire list if not entered)
`repositoryName`	No	Search keyword to filter repositories by name (partial match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds scope ('all') and mentions filtering/pagination capabilities, providing some behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't disclose details like response size limits or pagination defaults beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what it lists and mentions the key capabilities. With no output schema, it could explain what the response contains (e.g., a list of repository summaries), but that gap is minor given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 detailed descriptions for pageNo, pageSize, and repositoryName. The description only restates 'filtering by name and pagination', which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all SourceCommit repositories'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_repo tools by indicating it retrieves all repositories, not a single one.

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 phrase 'List all SourceCommit repositories' implies usage for retrieving a repository listing, and filtering/pagination hints suggest when to use parameters. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this over alternatives like ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server