Verify connectivity to all configured Kafka Schema Registry instances, ensuring each registry responds as expected.
Test connections to all configured registries.
NOTE: This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. Consider using the 'registry://status' resource instead for better performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Test connections' clearly implies a non-destructive diagnostic action, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether results are aggregated, or if there are any side effects. It is minimally transparent but leaves room for more detail.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful compatibility note without unnecessary padding. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schema and simple diagnostic purpose, the description is mostly complete. It communicates the action, scope, legacy status, and a faster alternative. It could be slightly more complete by describing expected output or failure behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the gaps are minor.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described at 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter information is needed; the description's scope statement is sufficient.
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 and resource: 'Test connections to all configured registries.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling test_registry_connection by emphasizing the 'all configured' scope.
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 notes the tool is maintained for backward compatibility and recommends the 'registry://status' resource instead for better performance. This gives clear alternative guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with the test_registry_connection sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.