Delete a Kafka topic from a managed database by providing the database ID or label and the topic name.
Delete a Kafka topic.
Args: database_id: The Kafka database ID or label topic_name: The topic name to delete
Returns: Status message confirming deletion
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic_name | Yes | ||
| database_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose irreversible data loss, permission requirements, and potential cascading effects. It only states 'Delete a Kafka topic' and describes the return message, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.
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 two sentences plus a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence has a purpose, no fluff, and the key action is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter delete with an output schema, the description covers the inputs and output to an acceptable degree. It is short but complete enough for the minimal call, though it lacks risk and permission context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define parameters. It adds minor value by saying 'database_id' is an ID or label, but it does not provide formats, constraints, or look-up context. The parameter docs are just one line each and do not fully compensate for the missing schema.
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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('Kafka topic'), and the tool name clearly distinguishes it from sibling db_delete and other db_delete_* tools. The action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus db_delete or other Kafka topic operations, no prerequisites, and no warning about the destructive nature. An agent receives no contextual cues to choose this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.