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

ncloud-gov-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_sourcecommit_set_default_branch

Idempotent

Assign a branch as the default in SourceCommit to streamline repository access and align team workflows.

Instructions

Set the default branch for a SourceCommit repository

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>",
      "branchName": "<branchName>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_sourcecommit_set_default_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNameYesName of the branch to set as default
repositoryNameYesName of the repository

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens if the branch does not exist or whether the previous default branch is affected. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose without waste.

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 mutation tool with complete schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the action and object. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites or constraints (e.g., the branch must exist), and no usage guidance is provided, so it falls just short of excellent.

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 both parameters already explained ('Name of the branch to set as default' and 'Name of the repository'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate for a simple 2-param tool.

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 ('Set the default branch') and the resource ('SourceCommit repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_branches or edit_repo, which have different purposes.

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. It does not mention any exclusions or direct to sibling tools for related operations, such as creating a branch before setting it as default.

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