List subnets in Naver Cloud Platform. Optionally filter by VPC number to show subnets within a specific Virtual Private Cloud.
서브넷 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_subnets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vpcNo | No | VPC 번호 (선택사항) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior via '조회' but does not mention pagination, authentication, or the effect of the optional vpcNo parameter, leaving important behavioral context undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is compact and easy to parse, though it is slightly redundant with the tool name.
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 with one optional parameter, the description conveys the core action and implies a list return value. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on return structure and filtering behavior, making it only minimally 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 only parameter, vpcNo, is fully described in the input schema as an optional VPC number. The description adds no additional meaning about how this parameter affects the request, so it does not go beyond the schema.
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 '서브넷 목록을 조회합니다' clearly states a list/retrieve action on subnet resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_subnet and delete_subnet by indicating a read-only listing operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action, with no mention of VPC filtering behavior or exclusions relative to list_vpcs or other list_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.