AKHQ MCP Server

delete_topic_records

Destructive

Delete Kafka topic records up to a given offset and partition to free storage or reset data.

Instructions

Delete records from a topic

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cluster": "<cluster>",
      "topicName": "<topicName>",
      "offset": "<offset>",
      "partition": "<partition>"
    },
    "name": "delete_topic_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offset`	Yes	Delete records up to this offset
`cluster`	Yes	Cluster name
`partition`	Yes	Partition number
`topicName`	Yes	Topic name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. But it adds no behavioral context beyond the literal delete: it doesn't state that deletion is permanent, that it applies to a single partition up to the specified offset, or any side effects. This is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for such a destructive operation, so while concise, it is not fully appropriately sized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and terse annotations, the description should explain the operational details (partition-specific deletion, offset semantics, irreversibility). It does not, leaving the agent to infer critical behavior for a destructive tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description itself doesn't enrich the parameter meanings, but with 100% coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('records from a topic'), which distinguishes it from sibling delete_topic that removes the entire topic. However, it omits the 'up to offset' scope that the schema reveals, leaving some ambiguity about what 'records' means.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_topic, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use case (deleting records up to an offset in a partition) is left entirely to schema inference.

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

Deploy Server