Create a new Kafka topic by specifying a name, number of partitions, replication factor, and optional configuration settings.
Creates a new topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | No | ||
| topic_name | Yes | ||
| num_partitions | No | ||
| replication_factor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'creates'. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation, any required permissions, or what happens to existing topics. Output schema exists but return format is not described.
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?
Extremely concise at one sentence, but lacks any structure or additional context. It is not overly verbose, but could include more helpful information without becoming wordy.
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?
With 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention return values (output schema exists) or any constraints. Given the number of sibling tools, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no parameter info. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'config' is vague and would benefit from explanation (e.g., map of topic-level configs).
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 clearly states the action ('Creates a new topic') and distinguishes from siblings like delete_topic and describe_topic. However, it lacks context like 'in Kafka cluster' which would clarify the domain.
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 tool vs alternatives such as alter_configs or produce_message. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.