Retrieve the signature, return type, and body of a Snowflake masking policy for governance and compliance.
Describe signature, return type, and body of a masking policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| policy_name | Yes | ||
| schema_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what is returned (signature, return type, body) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any other behavioral constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive operation (though likely read-only, it's not stated).
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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it omits essential details about parameters and usage, making it too terse to be fully effective. It is not verbose but also not sufficiently informative.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of database and schema_name, does not mention whether policy_name should be fully qualified, and provides no context on when to use this tool. The presence of an output schema helps, but parameter semantics are entirely missing.
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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (database, policy_name, schema_name). The agent has no information on how these parameters are used, making it impossible to correctly construct arguments beyond guessing.
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 uses the verb 'Describe' with a specific resource 'masking policy' and explicitly lists what is described (signature, return type, body). This clearly distinguishes it from list_masking_policies and aligns with the describe_* sibling pattern.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other describe tools or list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.