snowflake_list_row_access_policiesList row access policies defined in a Snowflake account, database, or schema to audit and manage row-level data access.
List row access policies defined 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_row_access_policiesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_row_access_policiesDictOutput"v1.1.5Does 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 only the scoping behavior (account- vs database- vs schema-level listing), which is modest added value; it says nothing about permissions required or result size/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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero padding. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter filter tool, but every word earns its place.
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 the read-only profile. However, with three undocumented optional parameters at 0% schema coverage, an agent still lacks the pattern-filter semantics and the default scoping behavior, leaving the definition only minimally viable.
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% across three optional parameters. The description indirectly maps 'database' and 'schema_name' to the listed scope levels, but the 'pattern' parameter is left entirely unexplained and the description never states that filtering is optional. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.
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 (row access policies) with the scope levels (account, database, schema), so the agent can distinguish it from snowflake_describe_row_access_policy. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it falls short of the 5 level.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'account, database, or schema' - the agent can infer that omitting the narrower scoping listing broadens the results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to snowflake_describe_row_access_policy for detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.