Skip to main content
Glama
sjk4425

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_ncr_update_image

Idempotent

Update a container image's short and Markdown descriptions in a Naver Cloud registry to keep listings accurate for users.

Instructions

Update the description of a container image in a registry (PATCH /repositories/{registry}/{imageName}). Provide description (short, ≤100 chars) and/or full_description (Markdown).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageNameYesName of the image to update (URI-encoded automatically)
descriptionNoShort description (max 100 characters)
registryNameYesName of the registry
full_descriptionNoDetailed description (Markdown supported)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"New description for the image"New value: +"Short description (max 100 characters)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / full_description
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Detailed description (Markdown supported)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / imageName / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the image to update"New value: +"Name of the image to update (URI-encoded automatically)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "registryName",
-  "imageName",
-  "description"
-]New value: +[
+  "registryName",
+  "imageName"
+]
  2. 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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the endpoint shape (PATCH) and the fact that only description fields are touched, plus Markdown support for full_description. It does not clarify overwrite semantics (e.g. whether omitting a field clears it) or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter hint second. No filler, though the parenthetical endpoint notation is redundant for an agent that already sees the schema.

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 small 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: what it changes, which fields, and their constraints. Only edge-case semantics (clearing fields, response shape) are missing, which is acceptable here.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the ≤100-character limit that the schema already encodes (maxLength 100) and mentions Markdown, which adds essentially no meaning beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the description of a container image in a registry') and even names the HTTP endpoint, so it is unambiguous what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby siblings (get_image, delete_image, list_images), so it stops just short of the top mark.

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 clause 'Provide description ... and/or full_description' implies that at least one of the two optional fields should be supplied, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings or any preconditions (e.g. permissions, registry must exist).

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