Lists all load balancers in your Naver Cloud Platform account, enabling you to view and manage your network infrastructure.
로드 밸런서 목록을 조회합니다
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_load_balancers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves a list; it does not disclose whether it returns all load balancers, any scoping, read-only nature, or response behavior. For a read-only list tool, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action.
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?
The description is a single, short, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is effectively front-loaded and earns its place by conveying the core purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description does not provide any context about the returned data or the scope of the list. Without an output schema, the description should compensate by hinting at what fields or information is included, but it remains purely a bare statement of intent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline, a 0-param tool earns a 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action (조회합니다/retrieves) and a specific resource (로드 밸런서 목록/list of load balancers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the list operation for load balancers, separate from create/delete/add operations.
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?
The usage is implied: use this tool when you need to see the list of load balancers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related detail tools. It is not misleading, but it lacks proactive direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.