List backup file names and sizes for a Cloud DB for Cache instance by providing its instance number and optional region code.
List system backup details (file names, sizes) for one Cloud DB for Cache instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regionCode | No | Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN) | |
| cloudCacheInstanceNo | Yes | Cloud Cache instance number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / cloudCacheServerInstanceNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Cloud Cache server instance number",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / regionCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "cloudCacheInstanceNo",
- "cloudCacheServerInstanceNo"
-]New value: +[
+ "cloudCacheInstanceNo"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that the tool returns file names and sizes and targets system backups, which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose further behavior such as ordering, filtering, or response shape. This is similar to the calibration case where annotations carry the main burden.
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. It communicates the core action, the resource, the return content, and the scope 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?
Given the simple schema (2 params, 1 required) and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential context. It mentions the key return values (file names, sizes) even though no output schema exists. It could state the system-vs-manual distinction more explicitly, but the name and wording make it sufficiently clear for an agent.
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 regionCode and cloudCacheInstanceNo clearly described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('system backup details'), and explicitly states what is included ('file names, sizes') and the scope ('for one Cloud DB for Cache instance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_list_cache_manual_backup_details and ncloud_list_cache_backups.
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 when to use it by scoping to 'system backup details' and 'one instance', but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over ncloud_list_cache_manual_backup_details or other backup-related siblings. Usage context is inferable but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.