snowflake_list_tasksList tasks in a Snowflake database or schema, including schedule, state, and predecessor details.
List tasks in a database or schema with schedule, state, and predecessor info.
| 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_tasksArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_tasksDictOutput"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 behavior beyond that - no mention of result limits, whether pattern is a LIKE filter, or how the schedule/state/predecessor fields are surfaced - and the enumerating of return fields is redundant with the existing output schema.
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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and with zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted, even if more could usefully have been added.
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-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety. However, the three undocumented parameters and the total absence of selection guidance leave real gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke or narrow this listing.
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% and none of the three optional parameters (pattern, database, schema_name) are documented anywhere. The description only loosely gestures at database/schema scoping and says nothing at all about what 'pattern' matches, so it fails to compensate 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 (tasks) plus the scoping dimension (database or schema) and the notable fields returned (schedule, state, predecessors). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like snowflake_describe_task, create_task, or drop_task, though it never names them 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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'in a database or schema' hints that the tool can be scoped, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as snowflake_describe_task for a single task or snowflake_execute_task for running one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.