snowflake_list_integrationsList external Snowflake integrations, including API, storage, notification, and security types, with optional filters by name pattern or integration type.
List external integrations (API, Storage, Notification, Security integrations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | ||
| integration_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / integration_type / titleRemoved value: -"Integration Type"Input schema / properties / pattern / titleRemoved value: -"Pattern"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_integrationsArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_integrationsDictOutput"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 nothing beyond that. It doesn't disclose how the pattern filter behaves, whether results are paginated, or how results relate to the sibling integration listers.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and wastes no words. Its brevity is also its weakness, since there is no room allocated to parameter or routing guidance.
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 task is a simple read-only list. Still, with 0% parameter description coverage and overlapping sibling tools, the description leaves routing and filtering behaviour underspecified.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented 'pattern' and 'integration_type' parameters. It partially does so by naming the integration type categories (API, Storage, Notification, Security), which likely map to integration_type values, but it says nothing about the syntax or matching behaviour of 'pattern'.
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 clear verb (List) and resource (external integrations) and enumerates the subtypes returned, which helps an agent understand scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like snowflake_list_notification_integrations and snowflake_list_catalog_integrations, which appear to overlap with the Notification type mentioned here.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling listers (e.g. snowflake_list_notification_integrations, snowflake_list_catalog_integrations), nor any prerequisites or filtering context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.