List file names and sizes of manual backups for a Cloud DB for Cache instance to inspect backup contents and storage usage.
List manual 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 / cloudCacheInstanceNoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Cloud Cache instance number",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / cloudCacheManualBackupNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Cloud Cache manual backup number",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / regionCodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Region code (e.g., KR, JPN, SGN)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "cloudCacheManualBackupNo"
-]New value: +[
+ "cloudCacheInstanceNo"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds only the returned content hint ('file names, sizes') and instance scoping; it does not disclose pagination, limits, authentication, or other behavioral caveats.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and distinguishing scope. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, scope, and expected output fields. Minor gaps remain around exact response structure and how this relates to ncloud_list_cache_manual_backups, but the risk is low.
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%, with both parameters described and regionCode providing examples. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond linking cloudCacheInstanceNo to 'one instance', so the baseline of 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 ('List'), a clear resource ('manual backup details'), concrete output hints ('file names, sizes'), and scope ('for one Cloud DB for Cache instance'). The 'manual' qualifier distinguishes it from automatic backup-detail siblings like ncloud_list_cache_backup_details.
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 makes the use case clear: when you need file names and sizes of manual backups for a specific Cloud DB for Cache instance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.