List NAS volumes attached to a Naver Cloud Data Box by providing its Data Box number. Use it to inspect available NAS storage for a specific Data Box.
List the NAS volumes of a Data Box.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataBoxNo | Yes | Data Box number (console: My Space > server details > Infra tab) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no result limits, no note on whether a Data Box with no NAS volumes returns empty or errors.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 list tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what it returns in broad terms. However, with no guidance on when to call it or how results are structured/paginated, it leaves real gaps for a Data Box workflow.
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 single dataBoxNo parameter already includes a console navigation hint, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (NAS volumes) scoped to a Data Box, which distinguishes it from the general ncloud_list_nas_volumes tool. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent noticing the 'of a Data Box' qualifier.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ncloud_list_nas_volumes or the Data Box import/export listing tools. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right choice over its many NAS- and Data Box-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.