list_topicsList Kafka topic names, filtering out those outside the allowlist, and optionally include internal topics.
List topic names. Topics outside the allowlist are filtered out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeInternal | No | Include internal topics (starting with _) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral note that topics outside the allowlist are filtered out, but does not explain what the allowlist is or how results are ordered/limited.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the essential facts, with zero filler. The filtering caveat follows immediately after the core purpose.
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 simple, single-optional-param read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this is mostly adequate. However, the allowlist constraint is stated without any indication of what governs it, and the internal-topic option is left entirely to the schema.
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 single parameter (includeInternal) is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List topic names'), which clearly distinguishes it from describe_topic, topic_offsets, and list_consumer_groups. The resource (topics) is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.
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 on when to use this vs describe_topic (which presumably returns details for a single topic) or the other listing tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'list'; no alternatives or conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.