ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_unassign_secondary_ips

Release secondary IPs from a network interface on Naver Cloud Government Cloud. Specify the interface and list of IPs to unassign.

Instructions

Unassign (release) secondary IPs from a network interface

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": {
      "networkInterfaceNo": "<networkInterfaceNo>",
      "secondaryIpList": "<secondaryIpList>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_unassign_secondary_ips"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`secondaryIpList`	Yes	List of secondary IP addresses to unassign
`networkInterfaceNo`	Yes	Network interface number to unassign secondary IPs from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action with a synonym. It does not mention whether IPs must be currently assigned, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or what happens to the released IPs (e.g., return to pool). This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential action efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple operation with two fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It clearly states the core action, but lacks context about behavioral outcomes, prerequisites, or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (secondaryIpList and networkInterfaceNo), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb 'unassign' with a clarifying synonym 'release' and clearly names the resource ('secondary IPs') and target ('network interface'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tool ncloud_assign_secondary_ips.

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 usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or consequences. The need is inferred from the tool name and the presence of a corresponding assign tool.

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

Deploy Server