snowflake_list_network_rulesList network rules defined in a Snowflake database or schema to inspect access controls. Filter by pattern, database, or schema for targeted network rule management.
List network rules defined in a 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_network_rulesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_network_rulesDictOutput"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 no behavioral context beyond that – no pagination, filtering, or result-limit information. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal contribution.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. It is not bloated, though it is arguably too thin rather than too long.
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, but the 0%-coverage input schema means the description should compensate for undocumented parameters and it does not. For a listing tool with a filter parameter, the definition is under-specified.
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?
All three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name) have 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'in a database or schema' loosely gestures at the database and schema_name parameters but says nothing about 'pattern', leaving a third of the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('network rules') with a scoping qualifier ('defined in a database or schema'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling snowflake_describe_network_rule.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as snowflake_describe_network_rule or snowflake_list_network_policies. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.