snowflake_describe_dynamic_tableDescribe a Snowflake dynamic table to retrieve its definition, target lag, warehouse, and query text for monitoring or troubleshooting.
Describe dynamic table definition, target lag, warehouse, and query text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| schema_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / database / titleRemoved value: -"Database"Input schema / properties / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / properties / table_name / titleRemoved value: -"Table Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_dynamic_tableArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_dynamic_tableDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of attributes returned (lag, warehouse, query text), which is mild context but overlaps with the output schema. No mention of permissions, cross-database resolution, or error behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and returned attributes come first. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the unaddressed parameters.
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-value explanation is not strictly required, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, with zero parameter documentation and no usage context for a three-parameter tool, the description is only 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 0% across three parameters (database, table_name, schema_name). The description mentions no parameter names, no defaulting behavior, and no guidance on whether database/schema must be qualified when table_name is ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Describe) and a specific resource (dynamic table), plus the attributes it surfaces: definition, target lag, warehouse, query text. This implicitly separates it from snowflake_describe_table, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as snowflake_describe_table, snowflake_get_table_ddl, or snowflake_list_dynamic_tables. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for dynamic tables only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.