Skip to main content
Glama
singlestore-mcp-server

singlestore-mcp-server

by jonasliesas

load_file_start

Destructive

Load a local file into a SingleStore table after user confirmation, creating a new table or appending to an existing one. Validates rows first and runs in the background.

Instructions

Load a file from this computer into a table – only after the user confirmed in the wizard (confirmed; above the size limit also confirmed_large, the second confirmation).

``mode`` "new" runs ``create_sql`` (one CREATE TABLE for ``database.table``) first, "append" adds to the existing
table. ``columns`` / ``width`` / ``options`` come from load_file_preview; ``expected_size`` is the file size the user
saw (a file that changed since is refused). Every row is checked first; bad rows stop the load before anything is
written unless ``skip_bad``. ``method``: "auto" (LOAD DATA LOCAL INFILE, else INSERTs), "local_infile" or "insert".
Runs in the background: follow it with load_file_status, stop it with load_file_cancel.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
pathYes
tableYes
widthYes
methodNoauto
columnsYes
formatsNo
mappingNo
optionsYes
databaseYes
skip_badNo
confirmedNo
create_sqlNo
expected_sizeYes
confirmed_largeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.11.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description explains the major side effects: new mode creates a table, append adds to an existing table, rows are checked before writing, and bad rows stop the load unless skip_bad is set. It also explains background execution and the correct follow-up tools.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but front-loaded, starting with the action and confirmation requirement before covering modes, parameters, and follow-up tools. Every sentence carries operational meaning for a complex, high-parameter tool.

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?

For a 15-parameter destructive file-load tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow, confirmations, write behavior, and follow-up tools. It could be more complete by covering formats, mapping, and path semantics, but the core operating context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description adds substantial meaning for mode, create_sql, columns, width, options, expected_size, skip_bad, confirmed, confirmed_large, and method values. It still leaves formats, mapping, and path semantics undocumented, so it does not fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: loading a file from the computer into a table, with prerequisited wizard confirmation. It distinguishes the operation from preview and status/cancel sibling tools by naming their roles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage conditions: use only after user confirmation, use mode new vs append appropriately, and use load_file_status/cancel for follow-up. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the required confirmation and preview-derived parameters provide strong context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools