Create a new topic in a Kafka cluster, with options to set the number of partitions and replication factor. Not available in read-only mode.
在 Kafka 集群中创建新主题（支持指定分区数与副本因子；只读模式下不可用）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No | ||
| partitions | No | ||
| topic_name | Yes | ||
| replication_factor | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the read-only mode restriction and the mutation nature of the tool, but it omits idempotency behavior, what happens if the topic already exists, required permissions, and error semantics.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The core action comes first, followed by supporting details in parentheses.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits connection semantics and failure behavior, leaving some invocation context underspecified.
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%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions partitions and replication factor without adding format, default, or constraint details. It does not explain the optional connection parameter, and topic_name is only implied by the tool purpose.
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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a new topic in a Kafka cluster. The parenthetical adds scope by naming supported settings and an availability condition. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list, describe, or delete topic.
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?
It provides a clear when-not condition: unavailable in read-only mode. However, it does not name alternatives or give broader when-to-use guidance relative to siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.