snowflake_describe_streamlitRetrieve root location, stage, and query warehouse details for a Snowflake Streamlit app by name, optionally scoped to a database and schema.
Describe Streamlit application root location, stage, and query warehouse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| schema_name | No | ||
| streamlit_name | 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 / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / properties / streamlit_name / titleRemoved value: -"Streamlit Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_streamlitArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_streamlitDictOutput"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 value by naming the three attributes it surfaces (root location, stage, warehouse), but says nothing about permissions or behavior when the named Streamlit does not 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 terse fragment form leaves room to state scope or qualification without bloat.
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 required, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the qualification semantics (database/schema) unexplained, which is a real gap for an object-resolution 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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions streamlit_name, nor the optional database/schema_name qualifiers that determine where the Streamlit app is resolved.
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+resource ('Describe Streamlit application') and enumerates what is returned: root location, stage, and query warehouse. An agent can distinguish it from snowflake_list_streamlits, though the description never names that sibling.
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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative snowflake_list_streamlits (or the fact that this describes a single app rather than enumerating them). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.