Inspect a Kafka topic's partition distribution, leader nodes, ISR replicas, and configuration to diagnose replication, balance, and availability issues.
查询指定 Kafka 主题的详细拓扑（分区分布、Leader 节点、ISR 同步副本与配置）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. '查询' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical discloses what data comes back, but there is no mention of auth requirements, behavior when the topic does not exist, or connection handling. For a read tool this is adequate but thin.
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 that names the action, target, and returned fields with zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted.
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 the return values need not be detailed. However, with 0% schema coverage and an entirely undocumented connection parameter, an agent still lacks enough guidance about how to parameterize the call for a tool with two inputs.
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 only indirectly references topic_name via '指定 Kafka 主题'. The second parameter, connection, gets no explanation at all in either schema or description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (查询) and resource (指定 Kafka 主题), and enumerates the returned topology details (分区分布, Leader 节点, ISR 同步副本, 配置). This differentiates it implicitly from kafka_list_topics by promising per-topic detail, though no sibling is named 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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase '指定 Kafka 主题' suggests it applies to one named topic, which is the natural counterpart to kafka_list_topics. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.