tables_undrop_tableRestore a recently dropped Snowflake table using Time Travel by specifying the table name.
Restore a recently dropped table using Time Travel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / table_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that recovery is Time Travel-based, but omits retention limits, privilege requirements, and what happens when no recoverable version exists — the main failure mode for this tool.
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 zero filler; the key scope qualifier ("recently dropped") appears where it is most useful.
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?
The output schema means return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for an open-world restore operation the description says nothing about retention boundaries, required privileges, or whether the table returns under its original name and schema — gaps an agent would want covered before invoking it.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the quoting/casing convention for table_name. The description adds no extra meaning about how the name should be qualified (database.schema.table) or resolved, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Restore) and resource (recently dropped table) plus the mechanism (Time Travel), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name the counterpart tools (tables_drop_table, schemas_undrop_schema) to differentiate, but the name/description pair leaves little doubt about intent.
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?
"Recently dropped" implicitly conveys the usage window (recovery must happen within the Time Travel retention period) and rules out arbitrarily old drops. However, it never states prerequisites such as required privileges, nor does it mention alternatives or what to do if the table is beyond retention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.