mcp-clickhouse

Describe table

describe_table

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect ClickHouse table schemas: get column names, types, defaults, and comments for a specified database and table.

Instructions

Column names, types, defaults, and comments for a table.

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": {
      "database": "<database>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "describe_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Table name
`database`	Yes	Database name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 12, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the content of the response (column names, types, defaults, comments) even though no output schema exists. It omits any note on error behavior or whether views are handled, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, but the trade-off favors brevity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields returned. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not clarify relationship to show_create_table or edge cases like missing tables.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both required parameters (database, table) are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (a table) and enumerates the returned metadata (column names, types, defaults, comments), so an agent can tell it retrieves schema structure. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the sibling show_create_table, which likely returns similar DDL information.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like list_tables, show_create_table, and table_stats, the agent gets no signal about which to pick for schema inspection versus DDL or statistics.

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

Deploy Server