Create a new Kafka topic with specified partitions and replication factor. Unavailable 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| partitions | No | ||
| topic_name | Yes | ||
| replication_factor | No |
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait not in any structured field: the tool is unavailable in read-only mode. But it omits other relevant behavior for a mutation tool, such as what happens if the topic already exists, permission requirements, or failure modes.
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 states the purpose first, then parenthetical details for tunables and the mode restriction. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical packs several distinct ideas together.
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 explained. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is thin: it does not cover error/conflict behavior or parameter constraints an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% (properties have only titles), so the description must compensate. It does name the two tunable parameters (partition count and replication factor), but adds no semantics such as valid ranges, defaults, or the replication-factor-vs-broker constraint. It partially compensates but leaves real gaps.
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+resource ('create a new topic in the Kafka cluster'), which clearly distinguishes it from the list/describe/delete/produce siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the action is 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?
It provides one meaningful exclusion condition ('unavailable in read-only mode'), which is real usage guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use context relative to siblings and no guidance on prerequisites such as broker availability or existing topic conflicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.