Create a Nacos namespace to isolate configurations and services by tenant. Provide a unique namespace ID, display name, and optional description.
在 Nacos 中创建新的命名空间隔离环境（支持指定命名空间 ID、名称与描述）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespaceId | Yes | 命名空间租户唯一标识符 (Tenant ID)，不可使用保留关键字 public | |
| namespaceDesc | No | 命名空间业务用途描述信息 | |
| namespaceName | Yes | 命名空间显示名称 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states creation and supported fields; it omits permissions, side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, and return behavior.
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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and supported fields, though its brevity leaves gaps in other dimensions.
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 3-param create tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it omits prerequisites, failure modes, and what the operation returns, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.
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 schema. The description restates that ID, name, and description can be specified but adds no syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond what the schema provides. 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?
States a specific verb ('创建') and resource ('命名空间'), plus the scope ('隔离环境'). Clear what it does, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling namespace operations like delete or list.
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 when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided. The implied usage is to create a namespace when isolation is needed, but nothing explicit is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.