ncloud-mcp-server

ncloud_create_deny_allow_group

Create a Network ACL Deny-Allow Group in a VPC to manage inbound and outbound traffic rules. Specify the VPC number and optional name and description.

Instructions

Create a new Network ACL Deny-Allow Group in a VPC

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": {
      "vpcNo": "<vpcNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_create_deny_allow_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vpcNo`	Yes	VPC number to create the Deny-Allow Group in
`networkAclDenyAllowGroupName`	No	Name for the Deny-Allow Group
`networkAclDenyAllowGroupDescription`	No	Description for the Deny-Allow Group

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.10.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only restates the action with no additional behavioral detail. The annotation 'destructiveHint=false' is present, but the description adds nothing about return values, side effects, or required permissions. For a write operation, this is a minimal level of transparency.

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 sentence with no fluff, directly stating the purpose. Every word earns its place and the tool is easy to scan.

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 create operation with a well-documented schema, the description is sufficient to understand the action and invoke it. However, it lacks any context about what a Deny-Allow Group is or how it relates to Network ACLs, and there is no output schema to describe return values, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'in a VPC' adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema's vpcNo description.

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 ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('Network ACL Deny-Allow Group') and scope ('in a VPC'). It distinguishes from sibling list/get/delete/set tools, making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., existing VPC), or alternatives like 'set_deny_allow_group_ips' for subsequent configuration. The agent is left without context for selecting this over other Deny-Allow Group operations.

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

Deploy Server