Send messages to a specified Kafka topic with optional key, JSON/text payload, headers, and partition. Use it to publish data from agents or applications; unavailable in read-only mode.
向指定 Kafka 主题发送消息（支持 Key、JSON/文本载荷与 Headers；只读模式下不可用）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| headers | No | ||
| partition | No | ||
| connection | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only mode restriction and the supported payload forms, which is useful, but omits failure semantics, permission/auth requirements, and delivery guarantees expected of a mutation tool.
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 compact parenthetical sentence front-loads the core action and appends supported features and the constraint. No wasted wording, though it is quite terse for a mutation tool.
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. For a 6-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate but leaves partition and connection handling, error behavior, and permissions unexplained.
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% across 6 parameters. The description compensates partially by clarifying key, JSON/text payload, and headers, but the topic, partition, and connection parameters remain undocumented in both places.
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: sending a message to a designated Kafka topic. This clearly separates it from read/list siblings like kafka_list_topics and kafka_sample_messages, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.
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 when-not condition ('unavailable in read-only mode'), which guides the agent away from calling it in read-only environments. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_topic) or prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.