Delete a specified Nacos configuration by Data ID, optionally within a Group or namespace, to remove outdated or unwanted config entries.
删除 Nacos 中指定的配置项
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | 配置分组 (Group)，默认 DEFAULT_GROUP | DEFAULT_GROUP |
| dataId | Yes | 待删除的配置集 ID (Data ID) | |
| namespaceId | No | 命名空间 Tenant ID，留空或 public 为公共空间 |
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 burden. It states a deletion but omits whether it is permanent, what permissions are required, and what side effects occur on clients or dependent services.
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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the operation.
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 destructive three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain whether deletion is reversible, how group/namespace defaults affect the target, or what happens if dataId is missing.
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 the schema already documents dataId, group, and namespaceId. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource (删除 Nacos 配置项), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from read/publish siblings by name, but does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify scope relative to nacos_delete_namespace.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nacos_get_config_history or nacos_rollback_config. The use case is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.