Retrieve Cloud Insight event rules for specific metrics group IDs and a Naver Cloud product key.
Get Cloud Insight event rules associated with specific rule template (metrics group) IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prodKey | Yes | Product key (cw_key) | |
| metricsGroupIds | Yes | Metrics group IDs to query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / metricsGroupIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Array of metrics group IDs to query"New value: +"Metrics group IDs to query"Input schema / properties / metricsGroupIds / minItemsAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / prodKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Product key (cw_key)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "metricsGroupIds"
-]New value: +[
+ "prodKey",
+ "metricsGroupIds"
+]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 no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result volume, no statement of what an 'event rule' record contains. It essentially restates the resource being fetched.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is not padded, though it also stops short of using its brevity budget to add routing or behavioral detail.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what is fetched and by which IDs. The missing piece is disambiguation from the sibling ncloud_get_rules_by_monitor_group, which an agent would need before choosing 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%, with both parameters documented (prodKey as cw_key, metricsGroupIds as the IDs to query). The description adds no syntax, format, or cardinality detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 (Get) and resource (Cloud Insight event rules) plus the scope (associated with specific rule template/metrics group IDs). It even disambiguates the 'rule template' vs 'metrics group' terminology. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling ncloud_get_rules_by_monitor_group, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The existence of a near-identical sibling (ncloud_get_rules_by_monitor_group) makes explicit routing guidance important, but the description provides none, nor does it mention prerequisites such as prodKey/cw_key context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.