Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

by aywengo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Check Compatibility Interactive

check_compatibility_interactive
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a Kafka schema definition for compatibility with a registry subject and prompts you to choose resolution options when conflicts occur.

Instructions

Interactive compatibility checking with elicitation for resolution options.

When compatibility issues are found, this tool will elicit resolution preferences from the user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "schema_definition": "<schema_definition>"
    },
    "name": "check_compatibility_interactive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNo
subjectYes
registryNo
schema_typeNoAVRO
schema_definitionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.1.0
  2. Removedv2.2.2
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool issues elicitation prompts to the user mid-execution. It stops short of saying what happens after preferences are collected — whether they are applied, merely reported back, or discarded — and doesn't describe the shape of the compatibility result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the defining trait ('interactive ... with elicitation'). Economical overall, though the second sentence largely restates the first and could have been spent on behavior or parameters instead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with a nested object input, no output schema, and no annotation explaining return values, the description says far too little: no parameter meaning, no result format, and no note on what the elicited preferences ultimately affect. An agent could not confidently construct a call or predict the response from this text alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are five parameters (subject, schema_definition, context, registry, schema_type) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Terms like 'registry', 'context', and 'schema_type' defaults are left entirely to guesswork, including the nested schema_definition object, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('compatibility checking') and qualifies it as 'interactive' with elicitation of resolution options, which is a meaningful qualifier rather than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly name the non-interactive sibling check_compatibility, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: pick this variant when you want the user prompted for resolution preferences. There is no explicit contrast with check_compatibility and no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a client that supports elicitation or what happens if the user declines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools