snowflake_list_servicesList container services running on Snowflake SPCS compute pools, optionally filtering by database, schema, or name pattern.
List container services running on SPCS compute pools.
| 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_servicesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_servicesDictOutput"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 the useful scoping detail that results are limited to services running on SPCS compute pools. It does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, or filtering behavior beyond that.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb and resource immediately, making it efficiently structured for agent consumption.
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, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with three undocumented optional filters and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete: an agent cannot tell how to scope results by pattern, database, or schema, nor when to prefer this tool over similar listing tools.
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 three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name), and the description does not mention any of them. It adds no meaning about how to filter by pattern, database, or schema, so the parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List container services running on SPCS compute pools.' This clearly identifies the object type and the SPCS compute-pool scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like snowflake_list_compute_pools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative named. The description only implies that the tool lists services, without saying when an agent should choose it over sibling listing tools such as snowflake_list_compute_pools or snowflake_describe_compute_pool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.