Activate stopped Global Edge CDN edges on Naver Cloud Platform to resume content delivery by providing edge IDs.
Start (activate) stopped Global Edge CDN edges to resume content delivery
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edgeIds | Yes | Edge IDs to activate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / edgeIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Edge ID to start",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / edgeIdsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Edge IDs to activate",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / profileIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Profile ID that the edge belongs to",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "profileId",
- "edgeId"
-]New value: +[
+ "edgeIds"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — it operates on stopped edges and resumes delivery — but says nothing about whether the call is synchronous, what permissions are required, or what error occurs when edges are not in the stopped state.
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 with no filler: action, target, precondition, and effect are all packed in without redundancy.
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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It would be fully complete with a note on the required edge state or the synchronous/asynchronous nature of the operation.
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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already carries the param documentation; baseline 3 applies. The plural 'edges' and the schema's array with minItems 1 are consistent, but the description adds no format, ID-source, or batching guidance beyond what the schema states.
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 specific verb pair (start/activate), the exact resource (Global Edge CDN edges), and the qualifying state (stopped), so it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling ncloud_edge_stop_edge. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'stopped' signals that this applies to edges currently in a stopped state and that the outcome is resumed content delivery. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what happens if an already-running edge is passed, and no reference to alternatives such as stop_edge or get_edge_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.