Retrieve detailed information about a specific Kafka Schema Registry, including its configuration and status, to inspect or troubleshoot schema infrastructure.
Get detailed information about a specific registry.
NOTE: This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. Consider using the 'registry://info/{name}' resource instead for better performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / registry / titleRemoved value: -"Registry"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only labels the operation as informational ('Get detailed information') and notes backward compatibility/performance; it does not describe what information is returned, error behavior, or any side effects. The backward-compatibility note adds some context, so this is not a 1, but it is thin.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose first and the compatibility note separated. No filler. The structure is front-loaded and scannable.
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 one-parameter read tool it is reasonably scoped, but with no output schema and no parameter docs, the agent lacks return-format and value-format details. It is sufficient to route to the alternative resource, but not fully complete for direct invocation.
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 does not explain the 'registry' parameter beyond naming the resource. The resource-style {name} hints the value is a registry name, but the description never states that or what format/values are accepted. It also leaves the nullable/default behavior unaddressed.
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?
States a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific registry.' The tool name and description align, and the mention of the 'registry://info/{name}' resource clarifies the object type. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from list_registries, but 'specific registry' makes the scope clear.
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?
Explicitly names an alternative ('registry://info/{name}' resource) and recommends it for better performance, while noting the tool is for backward compatibility. This gives the agent a clear preference but no hard condition for when to fall back to the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.