ServiceNow incident + change management sync. DORA Art. 17/21 evidence. Returns 30-day incident stats, classification, resolution rates.
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": "servicenow_sync"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_back | No | Days to look back (default 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states return values (stats, classification, resolution rates) but does not clarify whether the sync operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, or is read-only. The word 'sync' implies potential mutation without elaboration.
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?
The description is very concise, using a few short fragments to convey purpose, context, and output. It avoids filler, though the fragment style and abbreviation (DORA Art. 17/21) slightly reduce readability.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides useful output information and regulatory context, but it leaves ambiguity around the sync operation's behavior and response format. This is a moderate level of completeness—adequate but with clear gaps.
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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (days_back) with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as ServiceNow incident + change management sync, and clarifies it provides DORA Art. 17/21 evidence with output of 30-day incident stats, classification, and resolution rates. The verb 'sync' is somewhat ambiguous—whether it performs a retrieval or an active synchronization—but the output description narrows the purpose sufficiently.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like incident_flow or evidence_pack. The mention of DORA Art. 17/21 gives domain context but no concrete selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.