databases_get_database_ddlRetrieve the exact CREATE DATABASE DDL definition for a specified Snowflake database to recreate, migrate, or compare its structure.
Retrieve the exact CREATE DATABASE DDL definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / database_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the qualifier 'exact', signaling the output is a verbatim server-side definition rather than a reconstructed one; it says nothing about failure modes for missing databases.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is not penalized here.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover behavior. The remaining gap is routing: nothing in the description helps an agent decide between this and databases_describe_database in a large sibling set.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains the quoting/case requirement for non-uppercase names. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Names a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific artifact (CREATE DATABASE DDL definition), which is distinct from describe_database's metadata view. It never explicitly contrasts the two, so the agent must infer the difference from the word 'DDL' alone.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over databases_describe_database, which is the nearest sibling and returns overlapping information. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.