Resolve a numeric tableId from an instance ID, database name, and table name for ClickHouse tables. Use to identify tables when only names are known.
Resolve a numeric tableId from instance ID, database name and table name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name | |
| database | Yes | Database name | |
| instance_id | Yes | Instance ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens if the table or database does not exist, whether the result is cached, or whether any permissions are required for the target instance.
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 sentence that front-loads the result being resolved and then lists the inputs. There is no filler, no redundancy with the title, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 three-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential mapping from names to ID but omits failure behavior, permission requirements, and any hint about how the resolved ID is consumed. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description merely restates them as instance ID, database name and table name. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format, casing, or ID-namespace nuance.
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 (resolve), the exact output (a numeric tableId), and the three inputs that produce it, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_tables, which an agent could plausibly confuse with an ID-resolution step.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrasing suggests you call this when you hold instance/database/table names but need the numeric ID required elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the table must already exist), and no named alternative among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.