snowflake_describe_iceberg_tableInspect an Iceberg table's schema, catalog integration, and external volume to understand its structure and storage configuration.
Describe schema, catalog integration, and external volume of an Iceberg table.
| 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_iceberg_tableArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_iceberg_tableDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds that it inspects Iceberg-specific metadata (catalog integration, external volume), which is modest scope context, but no permissions, limits, or edge behavior are disclosed.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; it immediately states the action and scope.
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 and annotations cover return shape and safety, so the description need not repeat those. However, with zero schema parameter descriptions and no routing guidance versus sibling describe tools, the definition is minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.
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 three parameters, and the description does not name or explain table_name, database, or schema_name. It only implies a table is required, leaving all parameter semantics to the bare schema.
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?
Names the verb (describe) and the exact resource (Iceberg table), and scopes the inspected metadata to schema, catalog integration, and external volume. It does not explicitly contrast with snowflake_describe_table or snowflake_list_iceberg_tables, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as snowflake_describe_table for standard tables or snowflake_get_table_ddl for DDL, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.