List all server instances on Naver Cloud Platform to review and manage your infrastructure.
NCP의 모든 서버 인스턴스 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_servers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regionCode | No | 리전 코드 (예: KR, JP) |
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 must carry the full transparency burden, but it only states the basic listing action. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, how the optional regionCode parameter affects results, or any pagination or output format details, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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 list tool, the description is minimally acceptable but incomplete: it does not describe the return format, pagination, or the behavioral effect of the regionCode parameter. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide a bit more context to be fully complete.
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 input schema already documents regionCode with a description and example, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning and even creates slight ambiguity with the word 'all' relative to the optional regionCode filter.
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 uses a clear verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves/lists) and specifies the resource ('server instances'), making it obvious that this tool lists all server instances. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_server_detail (single server) and create_server/delete_server/stop_server/start_server (mutations).
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use list_servers versus alternatives, such as when to use get_server_detail or list_vpcs. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.