Delete an IAM access entry from an NKS cluster. Requires confirm=true to execute, preventing accidental removal of cluster access permissions.
⚠️ Destructive: Delete an IAM access entry from an NKS cluster. Set confirm=true to execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to execute | |
| entryUuid | Yes | IAM access entry UUID to delete | |
| clusterUuid | Yes | UUID of the cluster |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / accessEntryNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Access entry number to delete",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / entryUuidAdded value: +{
+ "description": "IAM access entry UUID to delete",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "clusterUuid",
- "accessEntryNo"
-]New value: +[
+ "clusterUuid",
+ "entryUuid"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ⚠️ emphasis and the confirm gate, but confirm is already fully documented in the schema, so the added value is marginal. No mention of irreversibility or post-delete state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, warning front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause carries information and the action verb leads.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter delete whose annotations already carry the danger profile and whose schema is fully documented, the description is essentially complete. Only a note on irreversibility or permission requirements would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so clusterUuid, entryUuid, and confirm are already documented. The description only repeats the confirm=true requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (IAM access entry from an NKS cluster), which clearly separates it from siblings like ncloud_nks_create_access_entry and ncloud_nks_update_access_entry. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it lands solidly at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the destructive warning and the required confirm flag, but the description never states when to use this versus create/update access entry, nor any prerequisite (e.g. ownership or cluster state). Adequate but with a clear guidance gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.