Kafka MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

server_config

Reports an endpoint's cluster, brokers, auth, TLS, read-only policy, writable targets, Schema Registry, topic formats, and exposed tools to confirm permissions before acting.

Instructions

Report this endpoint's name, path, purpose, cluster, brokers, authentication, TLS, read-only policy, the other clusters it may write to (destinations), Schema Registry, configured topic formats and exposed tools. Use it to confirm the target and permissions before acting; several endpoints may target one cluster with different policies. Passwords are never returned.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tls`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`tools`	Yes
`brokers`	Yes
`cluster`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`read_only`	Yes
`sasl_user`	No
`config_file`	No
`description`	No
`destinations`	Yes
`http_address`	No
`sasl_options`	No
`topic_formats`	No
`authentication`	Yes
`schema_registry`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.7Oct 25, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / destinations

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / output_dir
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "endpoint",
-  "path",
-  "cluster",
-  "brokers",
-  "authentication",
-  "tls",
-  "read_only",
-  "output_dir",
-  "tools",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "endpoint",
+  "path",
+  "cluster",
+  "brokers",
+  "authentication",
+  "tls",
+  "read_only",
+  "destinations",
+  "tools",
+  "note"
+]

First observedv0.2.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a read-only reporting call, that read-only policy is itself part of the payload, and that "Passwords are never returned" — a meaningful security guarantee an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits any statement about side effects or cost/latency, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the returned fields, then pivots to usage guidance and the security caveat. The field enumeration is long but each item is a distinct capability an agent may need to know exists, so little is wasted — though the run-on list could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation. For a zero-parameter read tool, the description covers what is reported, when to call it, the multi-endpoint-per-cluster nuance, and the password redaction guarantee — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Report") and then enumerates the exact resource fields returned: endpoint name, path, cluster, brokers, auth, TLS, read-only policy, destinations, Schema Registry, topic formats and exposed tools. An agent can immediately tell this is an endpoint self-description tool rather than a cluster lister or topic inspector, which separates it from siblings like list_clusters.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit timing guidance: "Use it to confirm the target and permissions before acting," plus a non-obvious caveat that several endpoints may target one cluster with different policies. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong but not a full routing statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.