show_create_tableRetrieve the full CREATE TABLE statement for any ClickHouse table, including schema, engine, and settings. Use this to inspect or replicate table definitions.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the return value is the complete statement including schema, engine, and settings, but otherwise does not address error behavior or formatting.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the core action and result are front-loaded. The parenthetical '(schema, engine, settings)' adds meaningful specificity without bloat.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description tells the agent what it will receive (the full CREATE TABLE statement). No output schema exists, but the return value is sufficiently described for correct invocation.
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?
Both parameters (database, table) are fully described in the schema with 'Database name' and 'Table name', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, keeping this at baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('full CREATE TABLE statement') with details schema, engine, settings. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like describe_table or list_tables by focusing on the DDL statement.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over describe_table or list_tables. It does not state use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent must infer when the full DDL is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.