Kafka MCP Enterprise Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Kafka resource or action (e.g., cluster, topic, consumer group, ACL, message). There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., describe_cluster, create_topic, consume_messages). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools cover the essential operations for a Kafka enterprise server: cluster info, topic CRUD, consumer groups, ACLs, and message production/consumption. The scope is well-balanced.
Completeness4/5
Covers most core Kafka lifecycle operations, but missing tools for deleting or listing ACLs and possibly deleting consumer groups. These are minor gaps for an enterprise server.
Average 1.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely implies mutation (mutate) but does not explain what happens, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not concise; it omits essential purpose information. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no real content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description should be complete on its own. It is not, as it does not explain the tool's role among siblings like delete_topic or describe_topic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although there are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the description should still add meaning. It fails to explain what 'alter_topic_config' does, providing no value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'mutate / control_plane / ALTER' is a set of tags rather than a clear verb-resource pair. It does not specify what resource or configuration is being altered, making it nearly impossible to infer the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_cluster or create_topic. The description offers no context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'read', which hints at read-only access but does not confirm safety, permissions, or side effects. No information about what gets returned or any constraints is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks necessary detail, resembling a tag rather than a usable description. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification that hinders understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of describing a consumer group in Kafka and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention what information is returned (e.g., offsets, members, state) or any behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite having zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The cryptic label 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE' does not explain what consumer group is being described or how the tool operates without any input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE' is tautological, merely repeating the verb from the name and providing no specific information about what the tool does or what resource it acts on. It does not clarify that a consumer group is being described, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like list_consumer_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_topic or list_consumer_groups. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a vague description, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque. The word 'mutate' implies creation, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or error conditions (e.g., topic already exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It uses only a few words, which is not an example of good conciseness because it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to provide any meaningful information about the tool's purpose, behavior, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage trivially. However, the description adds no value; it does not explain what the tool does beyond the name. A baseline of 4 is not warranted because purpose is unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'mutate / control_plane / CREATE' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying the actual operation. It does not explain what creating a topic entails, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like delete_topic or alter_topic_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alter_topic_config or delete_topic. The description fails to indicate prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only says 'WRITE', which implies mutation but offers no details about side effects, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. Every word should earn its place; here they do not convey useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is severely underspecified. An agent cannot understand what the tool does, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no meaning beyond the empty schema. It does not explain what the tool produces or requires, so the agent gains no insight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'mutate / data_plane / WRITE' is vague and does not specify what the tool produces or to what resource. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'consume_messages' or 'alter_topic_config'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or usage scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as whether consumption is blocking, if messages are deleted, or prerequisites. The text is essentially meaningless.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) but is under-specified and not informative. It lacks structure and content that an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the critical nature of message consumption and the lack of output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, side effects, or how it interacts with the data plane.
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?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 3; however, it fails to add any useful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'read / data_plane / READ' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what is consumed (messages? from where?) or the scope. It fails to distinguish from siblings like describe_topic or list_topics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use consume_messages versus alternatives like produce_message or describe_consumer_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed. The description does not indicate that this is a read-only operation or any potential side effects. Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not front-loaded with useful information. It lacks structure and clarity, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves, leaving the agent without critical context.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but no parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE' is cryptic and does not clearly state that the tool lists consumer groups. It fails to convey the tool's core function in plain language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_consumer_group or list_topics. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'read' which implies a safe operation, but gives no additional behavior details (e.g., whether it requires authentication, what it returns, or if it has side effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specifying. It is not informative, consisting only of a phrase that adds no new insight beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves. A minimal tool still needs a sentence clarifying its output.
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?
With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already covers everything (empty). No credit for adding meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description repeats the tool's purpose with 'read / DESCRIBE' but does not specify what resource is described (e.g., which topic, or whether it describes a single topic or all topics). It adds no specific verb-resource pairing beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like describe_cluster or describe_consumer_group. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. The term 'destructive' hints at modification, but lacks detail on permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, but at the cost of clarity. The brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and empty annotations, the description should compensate with rich behavioral context. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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?
No parameters in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters but adds no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only provides tags 'destructive / control_plane / ALTER' without explicitly stating the tool creates ACLs. It is vague and does not clearly identify the resource or action, leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like alter_topic_config or describe_cluster. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention anything about read-only nature, permissions, or output behavior. The cryptic text offers no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is not clear. It uses a cryptic format that confuses rather than clarifies. Conciseness is good only when it retains clarity, which is not the case here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool, the description fails to provide essential context. It doesn't explain what the tool lists, what it returns, or any usage notes. Completely insufficient.
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?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no extra meaning, but there is nothing to add. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no additional parameter context is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE' is cryptic and does not explicitly state that this tool lists topics. The name 'list_topics' hints at the purpose, but the description adds little clarity and could be considered a tautology.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like describe_topic or create_topic. The description provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes 'destructive' which hints at mutation, but does not disclose what exactly happens (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on producers/consumers). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey essential purpose. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits necessary information.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters, the description should at least state 'Deletes a topic'. It does not, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no param info, but baseline for zero params is 4. No extra value needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'destructive / control_plane / DELETE' is not a clear statement of what the tool does. It provides tags but not a verb+resource. The name suggests deletion, but the description is too vague to confirm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'alter_topic_config' or 'create_topic'. No context on prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It hints at a read-only operation but provides no detail on what the output contains, side effects, or permissions. Barely meets minimum transparency.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded, but lacks substance. Conciseness is appropriate for a simple tool, but the content is too cryptic to be fully useful.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), a brief description could suffice, but 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE' is insufficient. It fails to clarify the exact resource and behavior, leaving agents with ambiguity.
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?
No parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 applies as no information is missing regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'read / control_plane / DESCRIBE', which indicates a read operation on the control plane but doesn't explicitly say what is being described (presumably the cluster). It distinguishes from siblings like describe_topic only by the resource, but it's vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like describe_topic or list_topics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kafka-mcp-enterprise-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaquarkhan/kafka-mcp-enterprise-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaquarkhan/kafka-mcp-enterprise-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kafka-mcp-enterprise-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaquarkhan/kafka-mcp-enterprise-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaquarkhan/kafka-mcp-enterprise-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vaquarkhan/kafka-mcp-enterprise-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server