Set a Naver Cloud sub-account login alias of 3-20 lowercase letters and digits so sub-accounts can sign in through it.
Set the sub-account login alias (3-20 chars of lowercase letters and digits). Sub accounts sign in through this alias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loginAlias | Yes | Login alias (3-20 chars, lowercase letters and digits) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the semantic context that this alias is the sub-account login identity, which is useful. However it doesn't say whether it overwrites an existing alias, requires admin permission, or affects active sessions.
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 short sentences: the action and its constraint first, then the reason this resource matters. No filler, no redundancy, front-loaded.
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 single-parameter setter with annotations covering idempotency and a complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits mutation semantics that matter here: overwrite behavior, uniqueness constraints, and permission requirements.
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 schema already documents the loginAlias constraint (pattern ^[a-z0-9]{3,20}$). The description repeats the same 3-20 char lowercase/digit rule without adding format, uniqueness, or collision behavior. Baseline 3 when 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?
States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('sub-account login alias'), so an agent knows exactly what this mutates. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ncloud_get_login_alias, though the verb 'set' vs 'get' makes the difference obvious.
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 the tool is used ('Sub accounts sign in through this alias') but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.