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

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_disassociate_public_ip

Idempotent

Disassociate a public IP from its server instance to free it for reassignment or release. Use this action when the IP is no longer needed on that instance.

Instructions

Disassociate a public IP from its currently associated server 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": {
      "publicIpInstanceNo": "<publicIpInstanceNo>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_disassociate_public_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publicIpInstanceNoYesPublic IP instance number to disassociate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.10.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's contribution is modest. It adds that the IP is disassociated from its 'currently associated' server, implying it must be attached, but does not disclose further effects such as the IP becoming available or network implications. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that conveys the action, target, and context without any redundant words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema provide sufficient context. It could mention that the public IP itself is not deleted, but the simple nature and annotations make the current level adequate.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the parameter's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Disassociate') and resource ('public IP from its currently associated server instance'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like associate, create, and delete. It is concise and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates the action's context (disassociating a public IP from its server), which is enough to infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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