Check whether a Global Edge profile name is available before creation. Detects duplicates by validating name length and allowed characters.
Check whether a Global Edge profile name is available (duplicate check)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Profile name to check (3-35 chars: letters, digits, '-', '_') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects. The description adds the 'duplicate check' framing, which clarifies intent, but does not disclose the return semantics (e.g. boolean availability vs. error on conflict) or any rate/auth constraints.
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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and nothing wasted. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter validation tool.
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 trivial read-only check with a fully specified param and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, it leaves the result semantics (what 'available' returns, and how a conflict surfaces) unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented with length (3-35) and character constraints. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a clear specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Global Edge profile name') plus the intent ('available'). An agent can distinguish it from sibling read tools like ncloud_edge_list_profiles, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. The parenthetical 'duplicate check' hints it precedes creation (ncloud_edge_create_profile), but the description never states that relationship or when to call this versus just attempting creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.