Discover data lineage by tracing upstream and downstream dependencies for any object in Snowflake, enabling impact analysis and data governance.
Retrieve upstream source and downstream dependent object lineage from Snowflake Horizon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| object_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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not mention permissions, limitations of Snowflake Horizon, whether lineage data can be stale, or any other behavioral caveats. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.
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 that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have traded a bit of brevity for parameter clarification.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly: it omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral context. The 4-parameter schema with 0% description coverage leaves too much unspecified, making the tool risky to invoke without further schema inspection or guesswork.
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 should compensate by explaining parameter usage. It mentions upstream and downstream lineage, which hints at the 'direction' parameter, but it does not explicitly describe possible values ('both', 'upstream', 'downstream') or the roles of database and schema_name. The agent must infer how to correctly specify the target object.
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 states a specific action ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('object lineage'), and it specifies both upstream and downstream directions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like snowflake_get_column_lineage or snowflake_discover_schema_lineage, leaving a slight ambiguity.
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 alternatives such as get_column_lineage or discover_schema_lineage. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The context implies a lineage lookup, but the agent is left to infer the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.