snowflake_list_masking_policiesList column masking policies in a Snowflake account, database, or schema to review data governance coverage and find policies applied to columns.
List column masking policies 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_masking_policiesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_masking_policiesDictOutput"v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scoping dimension (account vs database vs schema) but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or required privilege, which is expected for a broad listing 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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly what leaves the parameter gap unfilled.
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, but for a tool with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves the scoping/filtering mechanics 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partially meets it: the account/database/schema scopes loosely map to database and schema_name, but the 'pattern' filter is never explained, nor is the fact that all three parameters are optional with null defaults.
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) plus resource (column masking policies) and the scope options (account, database, or schema). An agent can distinguish it from snowflake_describe_masking_policy, though the description does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
Says what scope can be queried but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to snowflake_describe_masking_policy for policy details. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.