Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

by aywengo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Find Missing Schemas

find_missing_schemas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify schemas present in a source Kafka Schema Registry but absent from a target registry, so you can detect and reconcile registry differences.

Instructions

Find schemas that exist in source registry but not in target registry.

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>"
    },
    "name": "find_missing_schemas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the direction of the comparison (source minus target), which is meaningful behavioral context, but it says nothing about result shape, whether schema versions or contexts are considered, or performance on large registries.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation is immediately clear. It is arguably over-terse for a 3-parameter tool, but no wording is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations describing the response, yet the description does not say what is returned (schema names, IDs, versions?) or how results are ordered or scoped. Combined with 0% parameter description coverage and an undocumented 'context' parameter, the definition is thin for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the semantics of source_registry and target_registry via the phrase 'exist in source registry but not in target registry,' but the optional 'context' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource with a precise set-difference semantics: schemas present in the source registry but absent from the target registry. An agent can tell this differs from generic comparison tools. It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is useful (a source vs. target registry gap analysis), but never says when to prefer it over siblings like compare_registries or compare_contexts_across_registries, nor any prerequisites such as both registries needing to be reachable or configured.

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