Delete a Kafka topic from a cluster. Requires confirm=True because this destructive operation permanently removes the topic.
从 Kafka 集群中删除主题（高危破坏操作，必须传入 confirm=True 显式确认）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| connection | No | ||
| topic_name | Yes |
| 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 correctly discloses that the operation is destructive/high-risk and requires explicit confirmation, which is valuable, but it omits other important behavioral details such as irreversibility, impact on running consumers, or permission requirements.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and then the critical safety constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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. However, for a destructive three-parameter tool with zero annotation and schema-description coverage, the description should do more to cover the connection parameter and the full consequences of deletion.
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% with three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the most critical parameter (confirm=True) beyond what the schema offers, but leaves topic_name and especially connection completely undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb (删除/delete) and resource (主题/topic in a Kafka cluster), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like kafka_create_topic or kafka_describe_topic, but the verb alone functionally separates it from the other tools.
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 states a clear precondition for invocation: this is a high-risk destructive operation and the caller must pass confirm=True. It does not discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the confirmation requirement is a concrete, actionable usage instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.