Retrieve the current operational mode of the Kafka Schema Registry, with optional context and registry parameters. Quickly check the registry's configuration state.
Get the current mode of the Schema Registry.
NOTE: This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. Consider using the 'registry://mode' resource instead for better performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| registry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / context / titleRemoved value: -"Context"Input schema / properties / registry / titleRemoved value: -"Registry"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the backward-compatibility note adds context about performance trade-offs. However, it does not disclose the response shape, error behavior, or whether additional permissions are needed, leaving some transparency gaps.
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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the compatibility/resource guidance is concise and useful.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the parameters and the meaning of the returned mode. It only points to an alternative resource, leaving critical calling information unstated.
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%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'context' or 'registry' parameters. An agent only knows these are nullable optional strings, not what values they expect or how they affect the returned mode.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current mode of the Schema Registry'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_subject_mode. It does not explain what 'mode' means or differentiate from get_global_config, 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?
The description explicitly states the tool is kept for backward compatibility and recommends using the 'registry://mode' resource for better performance. This gives an agent actionable guidance on when to avoid this tool, though it doesn't state specific scenarios where using get_mode is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.