Stop running Global Edge CDN edges by ID to halt content delivery; stopped edges do not serve content.
Stop running Global Edge CDN edges. Stopped edges do not serve content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edgeIds | Yes | Edge IDs to stop |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / edgeIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Edge ID to stop",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / edgeIdsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Edge IDs to stop",
+ "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 covered. The description adds a useful consequence — stopped edges do not serve content — but does not explain reversibility, required permissions, or operational impact beyond that single line.
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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the effect. No filler or 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 stop operation with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It omits usage context relative to sibling edge operations, but the core action and consequence are 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'Edge IDs to stop.' The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-type guidance beyond the schema baseline.
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?
Names a specific verb, 'Stop,' and a specific resource, 'Global Edge CDN edges,' so the agent can tell it apart from start/delete edge siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with start_edge, but the purpose itself is clear.
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, prerequisites, or contrast with alternatives such as ncloud_edge_start_edge or ncloud_edge_delete_edge. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.