Snowflake MCP Server
OCI · DOCKER.IO/NSPHUNG/MCP-SNOWFLAKE-SERVER-NSP:0.14.4 · 2 COMPONENTS
A Snowflake MCP server — SQL queries, schema exploration, and data insights for AI assistants
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 23% of OCI servers
Category Databases
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result. View diagnostics → Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency48
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 41 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema quality not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to assess.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to compare.Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool definitions to assess.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool text to scan.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Protocol version not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we never saw its MCP handshake.Unverified
Unverified: 6 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (5)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
Checks we could not complete (9)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result.
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.
- Schema quality in Schema Quality & AI Usability (scores 0 for this)Schema quality not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to assess.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to compare.
- Tool coverage in Tool Coverage (scores 0 for this)Tool coverage not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool definitions to assess.
- Tool safety in Tool Safety (scores 0 for this)Tool safety not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool text to scan.
- Capabilities in Capabilities (scores 0 for this)Protocol version not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we never saw its MCP handshake.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 24 Sept 26 0
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/docker.io/nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server-nsp:0.14.4
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 60 ungraded findings
From the publisher's SBOM, not graded. These advisories match packages listed in the SBOM the publisher attached to this image. A publisher naming a vulnerable package in their own image is credible, so we show them. Nothing verifies that SBOM, though, so the Known CVEs signal does not grade the image from it.
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 | critical | yes | ||
| PYSEC-2026-4320 | none | yes | ||
| GHSA-567q-5qvw-pf92 | CVE-2026-112907 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-69hj-f68j-2879 | CVE-2026-112909 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g | CVE-2026-112910 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-9vhv-jxww-xfm5 | CVE-2026-112913 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-cwqr-hh33-gh44 | CVE-2026-112915 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-fq56-3cx3-fjxp | CVE-2026-112935 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-j8f7-rjxc-mr56 | CVE-2026-112936 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-rfpc-qcw5-3pc4 | CVE-2026-112939 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-v4x8-3wr5-3wq8 | CVE-2026-112940 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-5h93-6whr-6q8j | CVE-2026-116685 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv | CVE-2026-59951 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-rwrf-2pqf-9j8j | CVE-2026-116686 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-w4fh-qvv9-3v23 | CVE-2026-116684 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-6v7p-g79w-8964 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-j586-36cw-2gc2 | CVE-2026-114613 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-3625 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-2gx3-rcp4-g85q | CVE-2026-101917 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-42vr-xj54-vc7v | CVE-2026-101918 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-8wjv-2p76-3863 | CVE-2026-102265 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-9j54-fg26-wv3r | CVE-2026-102266 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-9v7f-9g4p-ffgj | CVE-2026-102267 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-ffc3-869f-jxw9 | CVE-2026-102268 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-gvp8-978c-rx2q | CVE-2026-103001 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | no |
| GHSA-hxm8-2xgr-2p9m | CVE-2026-102269 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-jwrc-g2q2-pq5p | CVE-2026-102270 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-p4g4-x82p-q773 | CVE-2026-102271 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-pxh4-856f-4h89 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes | |
| GHSA-r6x4-923q-g947 | CVE-2026-102272 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-w2cx-738m-mc7w | CVE-2026-102273 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-w6j9-cwv2-h6wq | CVE-2026-102274 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-x33g-cr3x-6449 | CVE-2026-102275 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4140 | CVE-2026-101917 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4141 | CVE-2026-101918 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4142 | CVE-2026-102265 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4143 | CVE-2026-102266 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4144 | CVE-2026-102267 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4145 | CVE-2026-102268 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4146 | CVE-2026-103001 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | no |
| PYSEC-2026-4147 | CVE-2026-102269 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4148 | CVE-2026-102270 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4149 | CVE-2026-102271 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4150 | CVE-2026-102272 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4151 | CVE-2026-102273 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4152 | CVE-2026-102274 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4183 | CVE-2026-102275 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-5rjg-fvgr-3xxf | CVE-2025-47273 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-h35f-9h28-mq5c | CVE-2026-59890 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-xmj3-9gf7-h52w | low | yes |
Showing 50 of 60 vulnerabilities.
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
Tools for package channels are captured by running the package in an isolated sandbox. The most recent sandbox run could not capture a tool list from this package.
How do I install the Snowflake MCP Server server?
Snowflake MCP Server runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i -e SNOWFLAKE_ACCOUNT -e SNOWFLAKE_USER -e SNOWFLAKE_PASSWORD -e SNOWFLAKE_WAREHOUSE -e SNOWFLAKE_DATABASE -e SNOWFLAKE_SCHEMA -e SNOWFLAKE_ROLE -e SNOWFLAKE_AUTHENTICATOR -e SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE -e SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE_PWD -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_ID -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_SECRET -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_SCOPE -e SNOWFLAKE_TOKEN docker.io/nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server-nsp:0.14.4 --log_level INFO. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · docker.io/nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server-nsp:0.14.4
claude mcp add nsphung-mcp-snowflake-server -- docker run --rm -i -e SNOWFLAKE_ACCOUNT -e SNOWFLAKE_USER -e SNOWFLAKE_PASSWORD -e SNOWFLAKE_WAREHOUSE -e SNOWFLAKE_DATABASE -e SNOWFLAKE_SCHEMA -e SNOWFLAKE_ROLE -e SNOWFLAKE_AUTHENTICATOR -e SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE -e SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE_PWD -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_ID -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_SECRET -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL -e SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_SCOPE -e SNOWFLAKE_TOKEN docker.io/nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server-nsp:0.14.4 --log_level INFO
This image reads SNOWFLAKE_ACCOUNT, SNOWFLAKE_USER, SNOWFLAKE_PASSWORD, SNOWFLAKE_WAREHOUSE, SNOWFLAKE_DATABASE, SNOWFLAKE_SCHEMA, SNOWFLAKE_ROLE, SNOWFLAKE_AUTHENTICATOR, SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE, SNOWFLAKE_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE_PWD, SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_ID, SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_CLIENT_SECRET, SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL, SNOWFLAKE_OAUTH_SCOPE and SNOWFLAKE_TOKEN. Set them in your client's env block for this server; docker run -e passes each one through to the container.
What is the Snowflake MCP Server server?
Snowflake MCP Server is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server. A Snowflake MCP server, SQL queries, schema exploration, and data insights for AI assistants. This page covers its container image (docker.io/nsphung/mcp-snowflake-server-nsp:0.14.4).
Is the Snowflake MCP Server server safe to use?
Snowflake MCP Server scores 10 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. The SBOM its publisher attached lists packages with 60 known advisories as of 5 November 2026. We do not grade that SBOM, as nothing verifies it. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
Is the Snowflake MCP Server server still maintained?
Snowflake MCP Server is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the Snowflake MCP Server server under?
Snowflake MCP Server declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the Snowflake MCP Server server?
VerifyMCP ran 5 checks on Snowflake MCP Server, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 1 more. 9 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Snowflake MCP Server: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 5 more. 6 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a container image, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.