Create a new Global Edge CDN profile by providing a profile name. Use this tool to set up a CDN profile for your Naver Cloud infrastructure.
Create a new Global Edge CDN profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new profile (3-35 chars: letters, digits, '-', '_') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Name for the new profile (3-35 chars: letters, digits, '-', '_')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / profileNameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Name for the new Global Edge profile",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "profileName"
-]New value: +[
+ "name"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with 'Create', so no contradiction. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the profile name must be unique, whether creation is idempotent, whether a domain must be attached afterward, or what happens on failure.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the verb leading. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 single-parameter create tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but a creation tool with an enforced unique name would benefit from noting the uniqueness/validation requirement or pointing at ncloud_edge_check_profile_name. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 'name' parameter already documents its length and character constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Global Edge CDN profile'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from siblings like ncloud_edge_check_profile_name or ncloud_edge_rename_profile, which would be needed for a 5.
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 the closely related ncloud_edge_check_profile_name (name availability) or ncloud_edge_list_profiles siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.