snowflake_list_iceberg_tablesLists Apache Iceberg tables across your Snowflake account, database, or schema, with optional pattern filtering to locate tables quickly.
List Apache Iceberg tables in the account, database, or schema.
| 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_iceberg_tablesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_iceberg_tablesDictOutput"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 scoping behavior (results can be filtered to account, database, or schema), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, 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. The verb and resource lead, and the scope constraint follows 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 described, and annotations cover safety. However, with three undocumented parameters and no guidance on scoping or filtering, an agent is left guessing about the main knobs of this list 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 coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters are described. The phrase 'in the account, database, or schema' loosely maps to the database and schema_name filters, but the 'pattern' parameter is never explained and no matching semantics or defaults are given.
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 (list Apache Iceberg tables) and the scope hierarchy (account, database, or schema). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling snowflake_list_tables, so the agent must infer the 'Iceberg-only' filter from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as snowflake_list_tables or snowflake_describe_iceberg_table. The scope phrase hints at what the parameters do but gives no selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.