Manage attachments on ServiceNow records by listing, downloading, uploading, or deleting files; upload and delete require confirmation.
Record attachments. action=list, action=download, action=upload (needs confirm=true), action=delete (needs confirm=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| table | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| sys_id | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| content_base64 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The confirm-flag requirement for upload and delete adds real safety context. But the description openly advertises a delete action while annotations declare destructiveHint=false, giving the agent a conflicting signal about whether this tool can remove data irreversibly. It also says nothing about permissions, size limits, or what upload/download return despite no annotation coverage for those traits.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then maps each action, with the critical confirm constraint attached to the right actions. No filler, though the extremely telegraphic style ('Record attachments.') costs a little clarity.
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 mutating, 6-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description is too thin: it omits how name/table/sys_id/content_base64 interact per action and how download content is returned. An output schema exists, which relieves some burden, but the per-action parameter contract is still missing.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It explains action and confirm semantics well, but name, table, sys_id, and content_base64 are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description – an agent cannot tell, for example, whether sys_id is the record ID or the attachment ID.
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 names the resource (attachments on records) and enumerates the four supported operations (list, download, upload, delete) with their action values, which maps directly onto the action enum. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sn_read or sn_write, but the resource is specific enough that an agent knows this is the attachment tool.
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?
It does state per-action preconditions (upload and delete need confirm=true), which is useful usage information. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, no exclusivity rules, and no explanation of when each action is appropriate beyond the enum names themselves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.