Retrieve metadata configuration, protect threshold, and cluster metadata for a specified microservice by service name, with optional namespace and group filters.
查询指定微服务的元数据配置、保护阈值 (protectThreshold) 及集群元数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupName | No | 所属分组名称，默认 DEFAULT_GROUP | |
| namespaceId | No | 命名空间 Tenant ID，留空或 public 为公共空间 | |
| serviceName | Yes | 微服务名称 (Service Name) |
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 burden. The word 查询 implies a read-only lookup and it discloses the returned payload (metadata, protectThreshold, cluster metadata), but it says nothing about behavior when the service is absent, required permissions, or namespace/group resolution rules.
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 clause naming the action and the returned data, with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits routing context.
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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource and the returned fields. It falls short on usage context and failure/permission behavior, which are unaddressed anywhere else.
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 (groupName, namespaceId, serviceName) are already documented with defaults and semantics in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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?
The description gives a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (指定微服务/specified microservice) and even enumerates what is returned: metadata config, protectThreshold, and cluster metadata. This distinguishes it from listing siblings like nacos_list_services, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus nacos_list_services, nacos_list_instances, or nacos_get_config. Usage is only implied by the word 指定 (specified), leaving the agent to infer that this is for drilling into one known service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.