AKHQ MCP Server

put_ksqldb_query

Idempotent

Run ksqlDB pull queries on Kafka clusters to retrieve current data from materialized views, enabling direct answers to streaming data questions.

Instructions

Execute a ksqlDB pull query

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": {
      "cluster": "<cluster>",
      "ksqldb": "<ksqldb>",
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "put_ksqldb_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sql`	Yes	The SQL query to execute
`ksqldb`	Yes	ksqlDB cluster name
`cluster`	Yes	Cluster name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description provides no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no mention of side effects, auth requirements, output format, or potential cost/latency. Even with annotations lowering the bar, the description adds no additional transparency about what happens when the query executes.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the key action. It is appropriately concise, though slightly thin for a tool that has an ambiguous sibling relationship.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple three-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the operation and query type. However, it leaves out the distinction from put_ksqldb_execute and any note about result handling, which an agent might need to invoke the correct sibling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all three required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a ksqlDB pull query.' The qualifier 'pull query' distinguishes it from other ksqlDB operations like listing queries or streams. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling put_ksqldb_execute, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as put_ksqldb_execute or get_ksqldb_queries. The phrase 'pull query' implies a use case, but the description never states exclusions or points to a sibling for push queries or other statement types.

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

Deploy Server