ncloud_edge_list_profiles
List all Global Edge CDN profiles to view and manage your Naver Cloud Platform content delivery configurations.
Instructions
List all Global Edge CDN profiles
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
List all Global Edge CDN profiles to view and manage your Naver Cloud Platform content delivery configurations.
List all Global Edge CDN profiles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / pageNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Page number for pagination (default 1)",
- "type": "number"
-}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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or any limits, so it contributes almost nothing beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention pagination or result scope, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it is present.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema requires no parameter documentation. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 clear verb ("List") and resource ("Global Edge CDN profiles"), distinguishing it from sibling operations like get_profile, create_profile, or delete_profile. It does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools such as list_edges or list_certificates, so it falls short of 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_edge_get_profile or other list operations. The phrase "List all" implies a basic use case, but no context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.