governance_create_roleCreate a new Snowflake role for access governance, with optional comment and existence checks to prevent duplicate role creation.
Create a new role in Snowflake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| role_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. | |
| if_not_exists | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / role_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 readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention required privileges, account-level effects, or the role-naming convention the schema hints at.
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 short sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tightness. It is front-loaded correctly but earns little.
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 needn't be explained, but for a write tool with three parameters and 33% coverage, the description omits the if_not_exists default, naming/quoting rules, and permission requirements an agent needs to call it safely.
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 only 33%: role_name is documented, but comment and if_not_exists (which defaults to true, meaning silent no-op on conflict) are unexplained in both schema and description. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the default-idempotency behavior invisible.
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 (Create) and resource (role) scoped to Snowflake, which is more than a tautology of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from governance_describe_role or governance_drop_role, nor mention any role-listing side effects.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus governance_list_roles or governance_describe_role, no prerequisites (privileges needed to create roles), and no note on what to do if the role already exists. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.