Retrieve the CORS configuration for a Ncloud Storage bucket to check allowed cross-origin requests and headers.
[Ncloud Storage] Get the CORS configuration of a Ncloud Storage bucket (GET /?cors).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucketName | Yes | Name of the bucket to retrieve CORS configuration for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the REST endpoint as a minor behavioral detail, but does not disclose what happens when CORS is not configured or the bucket is missing. With annotations covering the most important behavioral trait, this is a middle score.
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 that conveys the action, resource, and API endpoint without any redundant wording. Every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only GET operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. The only gaps are minor: it does not indicate error behavior for missing CORS configurations or describe the response shape, but the purpose statement already implies the returned CORS configuration.
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%: the bucketName parameter is described as 'Name of the bucket to retrieve CORS configuration for'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format or constraints, so this sits at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('CORS configuration of a Ncloud Storage bucket'), and even the underlying REST call (GET /?cors). It is immediately clear what the tool retrieves and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like ncloud_ncs_put_bucket_cors and ncloud_ncs_delete_bucket_cors.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that modifying CORS would require put_bucket_cors, nor what to do if the bucket has no CORS configured. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.