List Kafka topics with partition counts and replication factors, optionally filtering by name substring and limiting page size.
List Kafka topics with partition count and replication factor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Max topics to return. | |
| name_contains | No | Case-sensitive substring filter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and output fields, but does not explicitly confirm it's a read-only operation, mention pagination behavior (though page_size exists), or note any permission requirements. This is a gap for a tool that could imply side effects.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, and includes the key output fields. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the essential purpose and output. Minor omissions like explicit read-only confirmation or parameter interaction are mitigated by the schema, so this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page_size and name_contains) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action; it doesn't elaborate on how parameters affect behavior, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('List Kafka topics') and the specific information returned (partition count and replication factor), which distinguishes it from the sibling describe_topic that likely provides more detailed per-topic info. The verb+resource is precise and unambiguous.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., cluster_info, describe_topic, or search_messages). There's no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.