snowflake_list_pipesList Snowpipes configured in a Snowflake database or schema. Filter by name pattern, database, or schema to inspect pipeline configurations.
List Snowpipes configured 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_pipesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_pipesDictOutput"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 only the scoping constraint ('in a database or schema') and says nothing about pagination, result limits, empty-scope behavior, or required privileges.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than merely terse.
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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a three-parameter tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin to compensate for the undocumented 'pattern' filter and the absent usage guidance.
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 zero schema description coverage and the description never names or explains them. 'Database or schema' loosely hints at two of the three, but the pattern filter is entirely undocumented in both places, leaving the agent guessing at its matching syntax.
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 ('Snowpipes') with a scope qualifier (database or schema). It is distinguishable from snowflake_describe_pipe and snowflake_get_pipe_status by implying a collection rather than a single pipe, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as snowflake_describe_pipe or snowflake_get_pipe_status. The agent must infer that listing is the discovery step and describing is the drill-down.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.