snowflake_list_databasesList all databases accessible to the current role, optionally filtered by pattern, to identify available data sources for SQL operations.
List all available databases accessible to the current role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / pattern / titleRemoved value: -"Pattern"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_databasesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_databasesDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authorization-scoping detail ('accessible to the current role'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or filtering behavior.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is a simple read. However, the undocumented 'pattern' parameter is a real gap for correct invocation.
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 never mentions the single 'pattern' parameter, so an agent gets no indication that filtering is even possible or what syntax pattern accepts. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('List all available databases') with a clear scope qualifier ('accessible to the current role'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like snowflake_list_schemas or snowflake_describe_database, though the resource name makes it distinguishable.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as snowflake_describe_database for deeper inspection or snowflake_list_schemas. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.