ncloud-mcp-server

ncloud_sourcedeploy_list_scenarios

Read-only

List all deployment scenarios within a SourceDeploy project stage. Use this to review available deployment options and choose which scenario to run or manage.

Instructions

List all deployment scenarios in a SourceDeploy project stage

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "stageId": "<stageId>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_sourcedeploy_list_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stageId`	Yes	ID of the deployment stage
`projectId`	Yes	ID of the deployment project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.10.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already conveyed. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or response format. It is consistent with annotations, but lacks additional transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list operation with two well-documented required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys purpose. It lacks explicit response details, but given the low complexity and strong schema coverage, the description is adequately complete.

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?

Both parameters (projectId and stageId) have clear descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic detail about parameter relationships or formats, so it does not exceed the schema's value.

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 'List' with resource 'deployment scenarios' and scope 'in a SourceDeploy project stage', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_scenario (single scenario) and create/delete scenario operations. It unambiguously communicates the tool's function.

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 description implies usage for listing scenarios in a stage, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_scenario or create_scenario. There are no exclusionary statements or contextual cues beyond the basic read-only purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server