ncloud-gov-mcp-server

ncloud_globalcdn_get_monitoring

Read-only

Retrieve Global CDN monitoring metrics (traffic and requests) for specified CDN instances over a given hourly time range.

Instructions

Get Global CDN monitoring data (traffic, requests) for one or more instances over a time range

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": {
      "cdnInstanceNoList": "<cdnInstanceNoList>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "ncloud_globalcdn_get_monitoring"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endDate`	Yes	Query end datetime (format: yyyyMMddHH, hourly)
`startDate`	Yes	Query start datetime (format: yyyyMMddHH, hourly)
`cdnInstanceNoList`	Yes	List of Global CDN instance numbers to query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so safety is known. Description adds that it retrieves traffic and requests for instances over a time range, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations. Similar to the get_calls example, it adds modest context but not rich behavior.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Get Global CDN monitoring data (traffic, requests) for one or more instances over a time range'. Every word is informative.

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 query with fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose and data type. It could mention response format or granularity, but it's adequate for correct invocation. Does not require explaining return values since no output schema exists.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for startDate, endDate, and cdnInstanceNoList. Description merely restates these concepts (one or more instances, time range) without adding format or additional meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Get', resource 'Global CDN monitoring data', and scope (traffic, requests, one or more instances, time range), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_usage or purge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly defines the operation context (fetching monitoring data for Global CDN instances over a time range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It's clear enough for the agent to select when monitoring data is needed.

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

Deploy Server