Retrieve available node server types for Search Engine Service by providing OS product code and subnet number.
Get available node server types (product codes) for Search Engine Service (G2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subnetNo | Yes | Subnet number (from ncloud_ses_get_subnet_list) | |
| softwareProductCode | Yes | OS product code (from ncloud_ses_get_os_products) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / softwareProductCode / descriptionPrevious value: -"OS product code (from getOsProductList)"New value: +"OS product code (from ncloud_ses_get_os_products)"Input schema / properties / subnetNoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Subnet number (from ncloud_ses_get_subnet_list)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "softwareProductCode"
-]New value: +[
+ "softwareProductCode",
+ "subnetNo"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint: true already flags this as a safe read operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds modest context by specifying the G2 service scope and that results are product codes, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as response shape or pagination.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant detail. It earns its place entirely.
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 lookup with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value ('product codes') and scope (SES G2). It doesn't explain the distinction from ncloud_ses_get_node_product_for_change or response structure, but these are not required for correct invocation.
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%; both parameters (subnetNo and softwareProductCode) are documented with source references in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('node server types (product codes)') scoped to 'Search Engine Service (G2)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CDSS and SES tools like ncloud_cdss_get_node_products and ncloud_ses_get_server_specs by product family and generation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance in the description. The use case is implied by the name and phrasing – an agent should call this when it needs the list of node product codes for SES G2, and the parameter descriptions reference companion calls (ncloud_ses_get_subnet_list, ncloud_ses_get_os_products) as upstream dependencies, but no exclusions or workflow context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.