snowflake_describe_pipeRetrieve a pipe's definition and COPY statement from Snowflake to inspect data loading logic, dependencies, and configuration. Use it to debug or document ingestion pipelines.
Describe pipe definition and COPY statement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| pipe_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 / pipe_name / titleRemoved value: -"Pipe Name"Input schema / properties / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_pipeArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_pipeDictOutput"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 only that the result includes the pipe definition and COPY statement, with no mention of permissions or behavior when the pipe doesn't exist.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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 needn't be detailed, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage context or scoping rules, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about a three-parameter tool.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It says nothing about pipe_name being the required target or that database/schema_name are optional qualifiers, leaving all three parameters undocumented.
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 resource (pipe), and even names what the output covers (pipe definition and COPY statement). This differentiates it from siblings like snowflake_list_pipes, snowflake_create_pipe, and snowflake_get_pipe_status, though it doesn't explicitly call them out.
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 guidance on when to use this versus snowflake_list_pipes (enumerate pipes) or snowflake_get_pipe_status (runtime state). The agent must infer the difference from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.