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

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_detach_policy_from_sub_account

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove IAM policies from a sub account by providing their policy IDs. Set confirm=true to execute the detachment.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Remove one or more IAM policies from a sub account. Policy IDs are sent in the request body as policyIdList (the API takes no policy ID in the path). Set confirm=true to execute.

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>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_detach_policy_from_sub_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute
policyIdNoSingle policy ID to detach. Merged into policyIdList when sent; kept for backward compatibility
policyIdListNoList of policy IDs to detach. Provide this or policyId
subAccountIdYesSub account ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.12.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / policyId / description
      Previous value: -"Policy ID to detach"New value: +"Single policy ID to detach. Merged into policyIdList when sent; kept for backward compatibility"
    • addedInput schema / properties / policyIdList
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "List of policy IDs to detach. Provide this or policyId",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "subAccountId",
-  "policyId"
-]New value: +[
+  "subAccountId"
+]
  2. First observedv1.10.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that policy IDs go in the request body and that confirm=true is required, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the destructive warning and action, then immediately give the two operational details an agent needs: body placement and confirm=true. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 destructive mutation with full parameter schemas and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the action, target, required confirmation, and a non-obvious API transport detail. It lacks only explicit sibling-selection guidance, which is already penalized under usage guidelines, and there is no output schema to describe.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description reinforces that policy IDs travel in policyIdList and that confirm must be true, but these details largely duplicate what the schema already states.

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 identifies the action ('Remove one or more IAM policies') and the target resource ('from a sub account'). This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like detach_policy_from_group and delete_policy, and the 'one or more' phrasing signals batch support.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus attach_policy_to_sub_account or detach_policy_from_group. It explains mechanics (body parameter, confirm flag) but not the decision context that would route an agent to the correct sibling.

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