snowflake_suspend_dynamic_tableSuspend automated refresh and lag evaluation for a Snowflake dynamic table by providing the table name, with optional database and schema, to pause updates.
Suspend automated refresh and lag evaluation for a dynamic table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| 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 / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / properties / table_name / titleRemoved value: -"Table Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_suspend_dynamic_tableArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_suspend_dynamic_tableDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context by specifying that refresh and lag evaluation are suspended, but does not mention privileges needed, reversibility, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized and immediately conveys the tool's effect.
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?
While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety hints, the description omits any parameter guidance and prerequisite information (e.g., required privileges). For a mutation tool with 3 completely undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.
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 (database, table_name, schema_name), and the description provides no information about any parameter. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 (Suspend) and resource (dynamic table), and clarifies what is being suspended (automated refresh and lag evaluation). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like snowflake_resume_dynamic_table and snowflake_refresh_dynamic_table.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. The verb 'suspend' implies the action, but there is no statement of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.