running_queriesInspect currently executing queries on ClickHouse, including user, elapsed time, and memory usage, to monitor active workloads and identify potential bottlenecks.
Currently executing queries from system.processes (id, user, elapsed, memory).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming system.processes as the source and indicating the result is a live view of currently executing queries. However, it does not disclose ordering, limits, or potential permission issues.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and packs the source and returned fields into a compact parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: it names the source table and the fields returned. It falls just short of explicitly saying 'returns a list of...' and does not mention ordering, limits, or privileges, which would be more helpful given there is no output schema.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameter usage, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.
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 identifies the resource and scope: currently executing queries from system.processes, including the fields returned (id, user, elapsed, memory). It is unambiguous about what the tool exposes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as query, server_metrics, or table_stats. The description implies it is for viewing active queries, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.