Skip to main content
Glama
aywengo

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

by aywengo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_subjects

Fetch all subject names from the Kafka Schema Registry, with optional context filtering. Enables quick discovery of registered schemas.

Instructions

List all subjects, optionally filtered by context.

NOTE: This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. Consider using the 'registry://{name}/subjects' resource instead for better performance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNo
registryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.2.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / context / title
      Removed value: -"Context"
    • removedInput schema / properties / registry / title
      Removed value: -"Registry"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only list operation and optional context filtering, but it does not explain the 'registry' parameter, return shape, or error/empty behavior. The deprecation note is helpful but does not cover these gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no redundancy. The functional statement comes first, and the deprecation/alternative note is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and provides useful backward-compatibility context. However, it leaves the 'registry' parameter unexplained and gives no indication of the response shape, so it is not fully self-contained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for both parameters. It only glosses 'context' as a filter; the 'registry' parameter is entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List all subjects' with an optional context filter. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the note points to an alternative resource, so the main purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says the tool is maintained for backward compatibility and recommends using the 'registry://{name}/subjects' resource for better performance. This gives an agent a clear preference signal and explains when to choose the alternative.

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