Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

by aywengo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Suggest Resource For Tool

suggest_resource_for_tool
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify the correct replacement resource for a removed tool by supplying its name, so you can update workflows and avoid broken references.

Instructions

Suggest the appropriate resource to use instead of a removed tool.

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": {
      "tool_name": "<tool_name>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_resource_for_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / tool_name / title
      Removed value: -"Tool Name"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered without the description. Beyond that, the description says nothing about what the suggestion looks like, what happens when the tool name is unknown or ambiguous, or whether a mapping is guaranteed to exist. With no output schema, that return-value gap matters.

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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is lean, though the brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified.

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 no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description would need to say what gets returned and how to interpret the parameter. It does neither, so an agent knows the general intent but not what to expect from a call.

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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden of clarifying it. It does not clarify whether 'tool_name' is the removed tool's name (the likely intent) or the tool the caller wants to keep, which is the one ambiguity an agent would need resolved.

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 gives a specific verb and object ('suggest the appropriate resource') and scopes it to the migration case ('instead of a removed tool'), which is a recognizable purpose. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling by name, but the function is still identifiable from the sentence alone.

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 phrase 'instead of a removed tool' implies the trigger condition: the caller has a tool name that no longer exists and wants the replacement resource. There is no explicit when/when-not statement, no mention of what to do if the tool still exists, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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