snowflake_list_proceduresList stored procedures in a Snowflake database or schema. Optionally filter by database, schema name, or pattern to find specific procedures.
List stored procedures 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_proceduresArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_proceduresDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on scope-defaulting behavior (session context when database/schema omitted), result limits, or pagination.
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, which is efficient. The sizing is appropriate for the content, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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. But with three undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and no differentiation from the many sibling list/describe tools, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently.
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% for all three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name). The description hints at database/schema scope but never explains the pattern argument or that database and schema_name are optional and default to the current context.
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 (stored procedures) with a scope qualifier ('in a database or schema'), which is clear on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as snowflake_list_functions or snowflake_describe_procedure, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 snowflake_list_functions, snowflake_describe_procedure, or snowflake_list_tables. Nothing explains the effect of omitting database/schema_name or how to narrow results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.