ncloud-mcp-server

ncloud_gtm_update_policy_health_check

Idempotent

Update health check settings for a Global Traffic Manager policy, including protocol, port, path, host header, check period, and thresholds.

Instructions

Update health check configuration for a Global Traffic Manager policy

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": {
      "policyId": "<policyId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_gtm_update_policy_health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Health check path (HTTP/HTTPS only)
`port`	No	Health check port
`period`	No	Check period in seconds
`policyId`	Yes	Policy ID
`protocol`	No	Health check protocol
`hostHeader`	No	Host header (HTTP/HTTPS only)
`thresholdFail`	No	Failure threshold count
`thresholdNormal`	No	Normal threshold count

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?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation. It does not explain whether the update replaces or merges existing health check settings, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose with no redundant words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite good schema coverage and annotations, the description omits critical behavioral details such as partial-update semantics, response contents, and prerequisites. This is a substantial gap for a mutation tool with 8 configurable fields and no output schema.

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?

Input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including enums and descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Update' and identifies the exact resource ('health check configuration for a Global Traffic Manager policy'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_gtm_update_policy and ncloud_gtm_delete_policy_health_check.

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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and description, but there are no explicit guidelines about when to choose this over related tools such as ncloud_gtm_update_policy, which could also modify policy settings. No exclusions or alternatives 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