snowflake_describe_tagRetrieve tag properties, allowed values, and comments in Snowflake to audit governance metadata and confirm permitted values before use.
Describe tag properties, allowed values, and comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| tag_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 / tag_name / titleRemoved value: -"Tag Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_tagArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_describe_tagDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of permissions, response format, or openWorldHint implications. With no output schema details in the description (though output schema exists), this is thin.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. It communicates the core action without extraneous detail.
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 a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema details in the description, it is missing necessary context for correct invocation – especially the role of database and schema_name in resolving the tag. The description is too sparse to be complete.
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 must compensate for three parameters. It mentions 'tag properties' but does not explain database, schema_name, or tag_name format or defaults. The description offers almost no semantic clarification for any parameter.
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 (tag) plus the properties returned (allowed values, comment). Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like snowflake_list_tags or snowflake_describe_masking_policy.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snowflake_list_tags or snowflake_get_object_tag_references. The description is purely a functional statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.