List all system backups for Cloud DB for Cache in a region by providing the region code. Returns backups for all cache instances without filtering by a specific instance.
List system backups for Cloud DB for Cache in the region. This API takes no instance filter — use ncloud_list_cache_backup_details for one instance's backups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regionCode | No | Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / cloudCacheInstanceNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Cloud Cache instance number",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / regionCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved 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, and the description adds meaningful scoping context ('system backups', region-wide, no instance filter). However, it does not disclose pagination, response structure, or other behavioral details; the description adds context but not rich behavioral info.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and key limitation are front-loaded, and the alternative sibling is named concisely.
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 one-optional-parameter list operation with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it lists, the scope, and how to get per-instance backups; nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter regionCode is fully described in the schema with examples. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; at baseline 3 it is acceptable since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('List system backups') and a specific resource ('Cloud DB for Cache in the region'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ncloud_list_cache_backup_details, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting either 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?
It clearly states the scope ('takes no instance filter') and names the exact alternative for per-instance backups ('use ncloud_list_cache_backup_details'). This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.