show_create_tableRetrieve the complete CREATE TABLE statement for a ClickHouse table, including schema, engine, and settings, by specifying its database and table name.
Return the full CREATE TABLE statement (schema, engine, settings) for a table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name | |
| database | Yes | Database name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that engine and settings are included in the output, but discloses nothing beyond that about behavior or output size.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the returned content is parenthesized at the end for quick scanning. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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 simple two-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the return payload (schema, engine, settings) and the annotation set covers safety. The only missing element is guidance relative to sibling tools like describe_table.
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 100% with two required string params (database, table), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description mentions 'a table' but adds no semantics beyond the schema baseline, which is the expected 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full CREATE TABLE statement') and enumerates what the payload contains (schema, engine, settings). An agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling describe_table, which likely overlaps in intent.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With sibling tools like describe_table and list_tables present, the description never explains when this is preferred over those, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.