Retrieve Kafka cluster metadata and broker node details, including Cluster ID, controller, and node addresses. Inspect cluster topology before configuring clients or troubleshooting connections.
获取 Kafka 集群整体元数据与 Broker 节点列表（包含 Cluster ID、控制器与节点地址）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / connectionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Connection"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content of the read (cluster metadata plus broker node list) and implicitly signals a non-mutating info operation, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes for unreachable clusters, or whether results are cached/live.
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; the parenthetical return-field list is compact and earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the unexplained 'connection' parameter leaves a real ambiguity about which cluster is targeted, and no usage context is given.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'connection' parameter, so an agent gets no help choosing a connection target (e.g. named profile vs. default) for what is presumably a multi-cluster context. It fails the requirement that a low-coverage description compensate for the schema.
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 (获取/get) and resource (Kafka 集群整体元数据与 Broker 节点列表), and enumerates the returned fields (Cluster ID, 控制器, 节点地址). Its cluster-level scope naturally separates it from the topic/group/message siblings, though it never names them 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 guidance on when to call this versus kafka_list_topics, kafka_list_consumer_groups, or kafka_list_connections, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. cluster must be reachable, connection must be configured). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.