snowflake_get_pipe_statusRetrieves execution and health status for a Snowpipe, including pending file count and last ingested timestamp, to monitor ingestion performance.
Get execution and health status of a Snowpipe (pending file count, last ingested timestamp).
| 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_get_pipe_statusArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_get_pipe_statusDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantive context beyond annotations by naming the specific payload (pending file count, last ingested timestamp), which tells the agent what 'health' concretely means. However, it doesn't mention freshness, aggregation windows, or failure modes, so credit is partial.
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 identifying verb, resource, and the key returned metrics. No filler.
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 the burden), and annotations cover safety, but the absence of any usage routing against sibling pipe tools and zero parameter semantics means the definition is only minimally complete for a status-reporting 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% and none of the three parameters (pipe_name, database, schema_name) are described in the description text. The description compensates with no parameter guidance at all, which is a real gap for a 3-param tool where pipe_name is required and database/schema_name appear optional but unspecified.
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: 'Get execution and health status of a Snowpipe', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like snowflake_describe_pipe (metadata) and snowflake_list_pipes. The parenthetical enumerates what status means (pending file count, last ingested timestamp).
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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are stated. With siblings snowflake_describe_pipe and snowflake_list_pipes available, the description gives no routing guidance, leaving the agent to guess which of the three pipe tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.