Retrieve the full CREATE TABLE statement for an Impala table, including partitions, storage format, and properties, to inspect or recreate its schema.
Return the full CREATE TABLE statement (SHOW CREATE TABLE) including partitions, storage format and properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_name | Yes | ||
| table_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the SHOW CREATE TABLE implementation detail and the included content categories, which is useful but does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior, or output size limits. The strong annotations keep the burden low.
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 leads with the action, names the output mechanism, and lists the scope boundaries. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.
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 read-only, idempotent tool with only two conventional string parameters and an output schema present, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The full-DDL scope is clear, and the content list removes ambiguity about what is returned.
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 0%, so the description needed to clarify db_name and table_name, but it only describes the output content. The parameter names are conventional and inferable, yet the description itself adds no explicit semantic guidance for either parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource: the full CREATE TABLE statement via SHOW CREATE TABLE. It then enumerates the content scope (partitions, storage format, properties), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_table_schema or get_partitions.
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 text implies this tool is for retrieving complete DDL for an existing table, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_ddl over get_table_schema, get_partitions, or get_table_comment. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative-routing statements, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.