Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

by aywengo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Compare Contexts Across Registries

compare_contexts_across_registries
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare schema contexts across two Kafka Schema Registry instances to identify differences before migration, replication, or synchronization.

Instructions

Compare contexts across two registries.

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": {
      "source_registry": "<source_registry>",
      "target_registry": "<target_registry>",
      "source_context": "<source_context>"
    },
    "name": "compare_contexts_across_registries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_contextYes
target_contextNo
source_registryYes
target_registryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — not what the comparison yields, whether missing contexts on one side are handled, nor any cost or rate considerations — so it earns little credit on this dimension.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is concise to the point of under-specification rather than efficiency. Brevity is not itself the problem; the absence of any usable detail is, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the comparison semantics or return shape, an agent cannot predict what it will receive or how to interpret a match or mismatch. The read-only annotations lower the stakes, but the definition remains thin for a tool whose entire value is in its comparison result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, including three required ones, and the description does not name or explain a single parameter. It never clarifies whether target_context is optional or what happens when it is omitted (presumably compared against the source context), which is the single most consequential ambiguity here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Compare contexts across two registries"), which is slightly more informative than the title alone because it clarifies the unit of comparison is a context, not a registry. However, it never defines what a "context" is in this system, nor does it distinguish the tool from the sibling 'compare_registries', leaving the agent to guess at the actual object being compared.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 when a different tool (such as 'compare_registries' or 'check_compatibility') would be more appropriate. The agent is told what happens but not under what circumstances to choose this call.

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