Skip to main content
Glama
sjk4425

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_remove_resource_from_rules

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific monitoring target from Cloud Insight event rules by providing product key, resource ID, and rule group IDs; set confirm to true to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Remove a specific monitoring target from the given Cloud Insight event rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to execute removal.
prodKeyYesProduct key (cw_key)
resourceIdYesResource ID (monitoring target) to remove from rules
ruleGroupIdsYesEvent Rule (rule group) IDs to remove the resource from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / resourceId / description
      Previous value: -"Resource ID to remove from rules"New value: +"Resource ID (monitoring target) to remove from rules"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ruleGroupIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Event Rule (rule group) IDs to remove the resource from",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "prodKey",
-  "resourceId"
-]New value: +[
+  "prodKey",
+  "resourceId",
+  "ruleGroupIds"
+]
  2. First observedv1.10.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the '⚠️ Destructive' prefix largely restates that. The description adds only the target/scope context ('monitoring target', 'Cloud Insight event rules') and does not disclose the confirm-gate, required permissions, or the effect on existing rules, so it adds limited behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 leads with the destructive warning and then states the action and scope. No filler and nothing redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not note the mandatory confirm step, permissions, or impact on the referenced rules. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 (including the required confirm flag) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Remove') with a specific resource ('a specific monitoring target') and scope ('from the given Cloud Insight event rules'), so the agent can tell it apart from list/get rule tools. It stops short of naming a sibling add-counterpart (e.g., an add-resource-to-rules tool), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., how this differs from deleting a whole rule group). The context of use is only implied by the operation itself.

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