ServiceNow System Properties (sysproperties.do)

Search ServiceNow system properties

search_servicenow_properties

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search 7,300+ ServiceNow system properties (sys_properties) by partial name or by topic. Works with name fragments like "glide.email", "saml2" or "sc.max" and with plain language topics like "attachment size limit", "session timeout", "SSO login", "password policy", "list performance" or "email notifications". Use this when the user asks which property controls a behavior, how to configure something in ServiceNow, or wants a list of related properties. Returns names, short summaries and sysproperties.do links; then call get_servicenow_property for full details. Include the relevant links in your answer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_servicenow_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No	Maximum number of properties to return. Max allowed is 50.
`query`	No	Property name fragment or topic, e.g. "glide.ui" or "attachment size limit". If omitted, returns a general list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (names, short summaries, sysproperties.do links) and the escalation step to the detail tool. It stops short of stating result ordering or what happens when nothing matches, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what it searches and how, then usage conditions, then output shape and next step — a logical order with no filler. It is on the dense side, listing many example queries that could be trimmed, but each sentence still carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (names, summaries, links). Combined with the explicit handoff to get_servicenow_property and the guidance to include links in the answer, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining that the query accepts both name fragments ('glide.email', 'saml2', 'sc.max') and natural-language topics ('attachment size limit', 'session timeout'), which is a semantic distinction the schema's single example does not fully convey. The max parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search), resource (sys_properties, 7,300+ of them), and the two supported query modes (name fragment vs. plain-language topic). It also names the sibling get_servicenow_property and the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly enumerates when to reach for it: 'when the user asks which property controls a behavior, how to configure something, or wants a list of related properties.' It also gives the follow-up path ('then call get_servicenow_property for full details'), which is exactly the when/when-next routing an agent needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ServiceNow System Properties (sysproperties.do) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?