snowflake_list_warehousesList virtual warehouses in a Snowflake account with size, state, and auto-suspend settings to review compute resources and configurations.
List virtual warehouses in the account with size, state, and auto-suspend configurations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / pattern / titleRemoved value: -"Pattern"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_warehousesArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_list_warehousesDictOutput"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 safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the fields returned (size, state, auto-suspend), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or privilege requirements for listing account-level warehouses.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the returned attributes with no filler. Nothing to trim.
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. However, the undocumented 'pattern' parameter leaves the only input ambiguous, which is a real completeness gap for an otherwise simple list tool.
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?
The single 'pattern' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. An agent has no idea whether it is a regex, glob, LIKE pattern, or case-sensitive filter – a meaningful gap for a filter that is the only input.
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 (virtual warehouses) plus the scope (in the account) and the data surfaced (size, state, auto-suspend configurations). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling snowflake_describe_warehouse, which would cover a single warehouse.
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 implied by 'List ... in the account' – this is the enumeration tool vs describe/detail siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer it over snowflake_describe_warehouse or snowflake_get_warehouse_load_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.