List configuration sets with pagination and fuzzy filtering by Data ID, Group, or app name for namespace-aware config discovery.
分页模糊搜索配置集列表（支持按 Data ID 或 Group 模糊匹配）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | 配置分组模糊匹配关键字 | |
| dataId | No | 配置集 ID 模糊匹配关键字 | |
| pageNo | No | 分页查询页码，默认 1 | |
| appName | No | 应用名称模糊匹配关键字 | |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It notes only that results are paginated, which the schema already conveys via pageNo/pageSize; it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, namespace scoping, ordering, or what an empty result means for a 6-parameter query tool.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, the resource, and the matching scope with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.
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-only list tool whose parameters are fully described by the schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent without any signal about safety profile, namespace behavior, or result shape.
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 six parameters are already documented by the schema, including defaults and the pageSize cap. The description only restates Data ID and Group fuzzy matching, adding no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema supplies.
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 (分页模糊搜索 / paginated fuzzy search) and resource (配置集列表 / config list), plus the matching scope (Data ID or Group). It is easily distinguished from the single-item nacos_get_config and write siblings like nacos_publish_config, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as nacos_get_config for a known Data ID. The agent must infer from the word '列表' (list) that this is the enumeration entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.