governance_list_grants_to_roleLists privileges granted to a specific Snowflake role to support access audits. Pass the role name to inspect its granted privileges.
List privileges granted to a specific role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_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 / 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'list' — no note on whether results include inherited role grants, pagination, or scope. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 efficient sentence with no waste and the resource front-loaded. Slightly thin rather than padded, but perfectly concise.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover safety, and the sole parameter is documented. Adequate for a simple read-only lister, though noting the relationship to list_grants_to_user would complete it.
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 role_name parameter is well documented including the quoting rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what is in the schema, making baseline 3 correct.
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?
Clear specific verb 'List' plus resource 'privileges granted to a specific role'. Distinct from siblings like governance_list_roles and governance_list_grants_to_user by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling (list_grants_to_user).
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 implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer governance_list_grants_to_user, and no stated prerequisites such as privileges needed to inspect grants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.