snowflake_describe_procedureRetrieve a Snowflake stored procedure's signature, return type, language, and definition body to inspect its implementation.
Describe procedure signature, return type, language, and definition body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| schema_name | No | ||
| procedure_signature | Yes |
| 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 / procedure_signature / titleRemoved value: -"Procedure Signature"Input schema / properties / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_procedureArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_procedureDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content about what metadata is retrieved (signature, return type, language, definition body), but does not disclose privilege requirements or other operational context.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently enumerates the exact metadata fields returned without unnecessary elaboration.
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 need not be explained in detail, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits critical parameter semantics and any usage guidance for a tool whose required procedure_signature input is otherwise undocumented.
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 provides no meaningful parameter guidance. It does not explain the required procedure_signature format or the optional database and schema_name qualifiers, leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.
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 precise resource ('procedure signature, return type, language, and definition body'). An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like snowflake_list_procedures, which lists procedures rather than retrieving detailed metadata.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It leaves the agent to infer that this tool is used when detailed procedure metadata is needed, but does not mention sibling list_procedures or any conditions for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.