List Cloud Cache image product codes to identify Redis and Valkey versions for deployment.
List available Cloud Cache image product codes (Redis/Valkey versions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regionCode | No | Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN) | |
| productCode | No | Filter by a specific image product code | |
| generationCode | No | Filter by server generation: G2 | G3 | |
| exclusionProductCode | No | Exclude a specific image product code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / exclusionProductCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Exclude a specific image product code",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / generationCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by server generation: G2 | G3",
+ "enum": [
+ "G2",
+ "G3"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / productCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by a specific image product code",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description's 'List available' wording is consistent. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response size, pagination, or whether results are sorted, but this is acceptable given the simple listing nature and existing 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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and relevant engine versions. There is no filler or wasted wording.
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 simple read-only listing tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention how the returned codes are intended to be used, but this is not essential for correct invocation.
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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including enums for generationCode and clear filter descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb (List), a precise resource (Cloud Cache image product codes), and clarifies the engine versions (Redis/Valkey). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling image-product listing tools (e.g., ncloud_get_mysql_image_products) and from ncloud_get_cache_products.
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?
The description implies this is the tool for retrieving Cloud Cache image product codes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools like ncloud_get_cache_products or other database image product listers. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.