ncloud-mcp-server

ncloud_attach_policy_to_sub_account

Idempotent

Attach IAM policies to a sub account by specifying subAccountId and policyIdList to control permissions.

Instructions

Assign IAM policies to a sub account

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": {
      "subAccountId": "<subAccountId>",
      "policyIdList": "<policyIdList>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_attach_policy_to_sub_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`policyIdList`	Yes	List of policy IDs to assign
`subAccountId`	Yes	Sub account ID to assign policies to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.10.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe to retry and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether existing policy assignments are replaced or appended, or what response is returned. 'Assign' is vague about the effect on existing policies.

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 that states the action and target without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters and informative annotations, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on usage alternatives and does not disclose the effect on existing policy assignments, making it slightly incomplete for an agent deciding between attach/detach operations or handling retries.

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 clear descriptions for both subAccountId and policyIdList. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('assign'), the resource ('IAM policies'), and the target ('sub account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_policy_to_group. It is a specific, unambiguous statement, though it closely paraphrases the tool name without additional nuance.

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 the use case: you use this tool when you want to assign IAM policies to a sub account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as the sibling tool ncloud_attach_policy_to_group for group attachments.

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

Deploy Server