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

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_change_nas_volume_size

Idempotent

Change a NAS volume's capacity by providing the instance number and a new size from 500 to 10,000 GB in 100 GB increments.

Instructions

Change the size of a NAS volume instance

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": {
      "nasVolumeInstanceNo": "<nasVolumeInstanceNo>",
      "volumeSize": "<volumeSize>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_change_nas_volume_size"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
volumeSizeYesNew volume size in GB (500~10000, in 100GB increments)
nasVolumeInstanceNoYesNAS volume instance number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.10.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the operation is online, requires stopping the volume, or has billing implications), but 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter operation.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and non-destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage context and any note about operational behavior or expected response, making it adequate but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with NAS resizing.

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%: both parameters are described with useful details (volumeSize ranges 500-10000 GB in 100GB increments, nasVolumeInstanceNo identifies the volume). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 ('Change') and resource ('size of a NAS volume instance'), clearly distinguishing this tool from NAS siblings that create, delete, restore, or configure access control. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description states only the action and target, with no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new volume, setting access control, or restoring from snapshot). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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