Deletes a Global Edge certificate slot that is not used by any edge; set confirm=true to run the destructive operation.
⚠️ Destructive: Delete a Global Edge certificate slot. The slot must not be in use by any edge. Set confirm=true to execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slotId | Yes | Certificate slot ID to delete | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / certificateIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Certificate ID to delete",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / slotIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Certificate slot ID to delete",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "certificateId"
-]New value: +[
+ "slotId"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the in-use precondition that causes failure and the confirm gate required to execute, which an agent needs to avoid a failed or unintended destructive call.
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?
Two short sentences: the destructive warning is front-loaded, followed by the precondition and the execution gate. No filler, and the most critical information comes first.
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 destructive single-resource tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the precondition and confirmation requirement, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It could add what happens to assets tied to the slot, but nothing essential is missing.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the confirm=true requirement and does not add format or semantic detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3.
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 (Delete) and resource (Global Edge certificate slot), which reads clearly against generic certificate deletion siblings like ncloud_delete_certificate and ncloud_cm2_revoke_certificate. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ncloud_edge_remove_certificates_from_slot, which also operates on slots, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Gives a concrete precondition -- the slot must not be in use by any edge -- and the confirm=true gate, which tells the agent when this call will succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., removing certificates from the slot instead of deleting it) or explicitly stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.