list_consumer_groupsList consumer groups and their protocol types for monitoring and management. Identify active groups in your Kafka cluster to track consumption and assess health.
List consumer groups and their protocol types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover safety semantics: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that protocol types are included in the result, but gives no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or whether all known consumer groups are returned.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys both the operation and a useful piece of return data. Every word contributes value.
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 parameterless list operation, the description plus annotations are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but none is needed to know how to call this tool.
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 input schema is empty with perfect coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('consumer groups'), and names the return content ('protocol types'). It can be distinguished from siblings such as describe_consumer_group and list_topics because 'list' plus the resource clearly signals an overview operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus describe_consumer_group for more detail, or when list_topics is more appropriate. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.