Get node server types for CDSS cluster creation by specifying OS product code and subnet number.
Get available node server types (product codes) for CDSS cluster creation (G2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subnetNo | Yes | Subnet number (from ncloud_cdss_get_subnet_list) | |
| softwareProductCode | Yes | OS type code (from ncloud_cdss_get_os_products) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / softwareProductCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "OS type code (from ncloud_cdss_get_os_products)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / subnetNoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Subnet number (from ncloud_cdss_get_subnet_list)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "softwareProductCode",
+ "subnetNo"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns product codes and is tied to G2 creation, but it does not describe response shape or additional prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.
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. Every phrase contributes meaning: what is fetched, what the result represents, and the usage context.
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 read-only lookup with two well-documented parameters, the description plus schema cover the essential decisions: purpose, resource type, G2 scope, and parameter provenance. No output schema exists, but the description names the return concept ('product codes'), so the remaining ambiguity is minor.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain that softwareProductCode comes from ncloud_cdss_get_os_products and subnetNo from ncloud_cdss_get_subnet_list. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('Get'), names the concrete resource ('node server types / product codes'), and scopes it to CDSS cluster creation (G2). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ncloud_cdss_get_node_spec and ncloud_cdss_get_node_product_for_change.
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 states the intended context: CDSS cluster creation (G2). The parameter descriptions add workflow guidance by pointing to ncloud_cdss_get_os_products and ncloud_cdss_get_subnet_list as prerequisite calls. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.