snowflake_list_alertsLists configured Snowflake alerts with their condition queries, schedules, and current state, optionally filtered by pattern, database, or schema.
List configured alerts with condition queries, schedules, and state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | ||
| database | No | ||
| 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 / pattern / titleRemoved value: -"Pattern"Input schema / properties / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_alertsArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_alertsDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the alert fields returned, which duplicate the output schema, and does not disclose auth needs, pagination, filtering behavior, or permissions.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately brief but so terse that it omits essential scoping details for a tool with three filtering parameters.
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?
With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, but the description still leaves critical invocation details missing: no parameter semantics for pattern/database/schema filtering and no usage context versus describe_alert or other list tools.
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 description mentions none of the three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name). An agent gets no help understanding what pattern matches or how database/schema scope filtering works.
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 (List) and resource (configured alerts) and names the fields surfaced (condition queries, schedules, state). It distinguishes from describe_alert by plural 'alerts', but does not explicitly contrast scope with siblings.
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 alternatives mentioned, and no conditions for choosing this over snowflake_describe_alert or other list tools. Only implied usage from the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.