List provisioned SSL/TLS certificate slots for Global Edge CDN. Paginate results by page number and items per page.
List provisioned SSL/TLS certificate slots for Global Edge CDN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Items per page (default 15) | |
| pageNo | No | Page number (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Items per page (default 15)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / pageNo / descriptionPrevious value: -"Page number for pagination (default 1)"New value: +"Page number (default 1)"Input schema / properties / pageSizeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of items per page (default 15)",
- "type": "number"
-}v1.10.1Does 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 the useful scope that these are 'certificate slots' provisioned for Global Edge CDN, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or any constraints beyond what the offset/pageNo parameters imply.
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 that names verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key information leads.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify what a 'slot' is relative to the sibling certificate tools, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 both parameters (offset, pageNo) are documented in the schema as pagination controls. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('provisioned SSL/TLS certificate slots') scoped to 'Global Edge CDN'. This distinguishes it reasonably from generic siblings like ncloud_list_certificates or ncloud_cm2_list_certificates, though the differentiation is only implicit in the scoping phrase.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., ncloud_edge_get_certificate for a single slot), and no stated prerequisites. The listing intent is inferable from the name, but nothing routes the agent among the many certificate-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.