list_databasesList all databases accessible to the current role for discovery and navigation in Snowflake.
List all databases the current role can access.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_databases"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It indicates that results are filtered by the role's access, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether system databases are included, ordering, or potential error cases, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.
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, clear sentence of nine words fully conveys the tool's function. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and object.
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?
The tool is low-complexity with no parameters and no output schema. The description entirely covers its behavior for an agent to use it correctly. No additional context, such as return formats or performance caveats, is warranted for such a simple listing operation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric, the description gets a baseline of 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly implies that no additional arguments are required.
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 ('List') and resource ('databases') with a clear scope qualifier ('current role can access'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables, list_schemas, and list_warehouses, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'current role can access' provides clear context about which databases are returned (permission-scoped). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the scope is sufficient for an agent to understand when to call this versus a more general listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.