Track configuration changes and audit snapshots by retrieving paginated revision history for a specific Nacos config item.
分页查询特定配置项的历史修改版本清单与审计快照元数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | 配置分组 (Group)，默认 DEFAULT_GROUP | DEFAULT_GROUP |
| dataId | Yes | 目标配置集 ID (Data ID) | |
| pageNo | No | 分页查询页码，默认 1 | |
| pageSize | No | 每页查询数量，默认 20，上限 100 | |
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a paginated query returning version history and audit snapshot metadata, but omits permissions required, whether the operation is read-only (only implied), rate limits, and the structure of the returned snapshots.
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 that states the operation and its scope without filler. Every component of the sentence contributes to understanding.
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 read-oriented history tool with a fully described schema but no output schema or annotations, the description adequately states what is returned and the pagination aspect. It falls short by not clarifying usage relative to siblings or providing any behavioral guarantees, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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 five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond the parameter names, making the baseline of 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 (分页查询) and resource (历史修改版本清单与审计快照元数据) scoped to a specific config item. The term 历史 makes it distinguishable from nacos_get_config and nacos_list_configs, which deal with current configurations.
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?
Usage is implied by the description—agents can infer this is the tool for inspecting historical versions of a config. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus nacos_rollback_config or nacos_get_config, nor any stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.