snowflake_get_query_planGenerate an EXPLAIN execution plan for a SQL query without executing it, so you can inspect performance and optimize queries before running them.
Generate the EXPLAIN execution plan for a SQL query without executing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_get_query_planArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_get_query_planDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the query is not executed, which goes beyond the generic read-only guarantee and is valuable context for a plan-generation 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no redundant words. The key action and its non-execution constraint are stated immediately.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return values) and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the plan's format or any connection prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing.
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 the single parameter 'query' is undocumented. The description only says it is for 'a SQL query,' adding no format, dialect, or other semantic detail beyond what the parameter name already implies.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('EXPLAIN execution plan for a SQL query'), and the phrase 'without executing it' clearly distinguishes this tool from the query-execution sibling snowflake_query. An agent can identify its function without opening the schema.
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 implies usage (use this to inspect a plan without running the query) but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. The agent must infer that it should choose this over snowflake_query when execution is undesirable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.