List consumer groups in a Kafka cluster to view Group IDs, protocol types, and states such as Stable, Empty, or Dead. Use it to audit consumption health and troubleshoot inactive groups.
列出 Kafka 集群中的消费组清单（包含 Group ID、协议类型与活跃状态如 Stable/Empty/Dead）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so by enumerating the status values (Stable/Empty/Dead) and fields returned, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits whether this is a read-only operation, what cluster/connection scope it applies to, or any auth/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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words that names the resource and its key attributes up front. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope. The main gap is the unexplained 'connection' parameter and the absence of any routing hint versus the describe/list-topic siblings.
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?
The single 'connection' parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and is also unmentioned in the description, so an agent has no explanation of what connection means or how it is resolved. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 (列出/list) and resource (消费组清单/consumer groups in a Kafka cluster), and even previews the returned fields (Group ID, protocol type, status). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling kafka_describe_consumer_group, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as kafka_describe_consumer_group for inspecting a single group. The listing intent is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.