schemas_undrop_schemaRestore a recently dropped Snowflake schema using Time Travel to recover it after accidental deletion.
Restore a recently dropped schema using Time Travel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. | |
| database | No | 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 / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."Input schema / properties / 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 disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds the important behavioral detail that restoration uses Time Travel, but omits retention windows, permissions, and what happens to conflicting objects; with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves no room for additional structural guidance.
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 output schema and annotations carry return-shape and safety information, so those need not be repeated. However, for a restore operation the description should do more to explain Time Travel retention limits, required permissions, and effects on existing schemas; as written it is minimally complete.
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 100%, so both the required 'name' and optional 'database' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at baseline given the high coverage.
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 gives a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('schema') plus the mechanism ('Time Travel'). It clearly distinguishes itself from schemas_drop_schema and schemas_create_schema, though it does not explicitly contrast with databases_undrop_database or tables_undrop_table.
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 'recently dropped' implies the condition under which the tool applies, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. An agent can infer this is for reversing a recent drop, but it is not told when to prefer it over creating a new schema or how 'recently' is bounded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.