queries_queryRun read-only SQL SELECT queries on Snowflake to retrieve structured rows with metadata. Use it to fetch and inspect data for analysis or agent workflows.
Execute a SQL SELECT or read-only query on Snowflake and return structured rows with metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_rows | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the SELECT/read-only restriction and that rows come back 'with metadata', but says nothing about permissions, result limits, or pagination behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough to leave the parameter behavior unexplained.
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 no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no mention of the max_rows cap or read-only enforcement, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently against the many DML/transaction siblings.
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% for two parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for either. It never explains that `query` must be a single read-only SQL statement or what `max_rows` (default 100) controls, so the parameter gap is left entirely unaddressed.
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 states a specific verb and resource (execute a SQL read-only query on Snowflake) and defines the scope as SELECT-only, which implicitly sets it apart from the sibling queries_execute_dml. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 only implied: 'read-only' hints that writes belong to queries_execute_dml, but the description never states when to choose this tool over the DML, transaction (begin/commit/rollback), or query-history siblings. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.