Retrieve snapshot creation history for a Search Engine Service cluster using its instance number. Specify page and size to control results.
Get snapshot creation history for a Search Engine Service cluster
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageNo | No | Page number | |
| pageSize | No | Page size | |
| serviceGroupInstanceNo | Yes | Cluster instance number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / pageNoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page number",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / pageSizeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page size",
+ "type": "number"
+}v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get'. It adds the useful scoping detail that this is about 'creation history', but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or any other behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately scopes the operation to Search Engine Service clusters.
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 listing tool with one required parameter and fully described schema fields, the description is mostly sufficient. The main minor gap is that it does not clarify the relationship to ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_schedule_history or describe the return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool keep this from being a larger deficiency.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about pageNo, pageSize, or serviceGroupInstanceNo beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('snapshot creation history'), and a clear scope ('Search Engine Service cluster'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_schedule_history by focusing on 'creation history' rather than 'schedule history'.
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 the tool: when snapshot creation history for a Search Engine Service cluster is needed. However, it does not explicitly give usage versus alternatives, especially the similarly named ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_schedule_history, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.