servicenow_get_devops_onboarding_statusRetrieve the current status of a specified DevOps onboarding event to monitor progress and identify blockers in ServiceNow.
Returns the current status of the specified onboarding event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| params_json | No | {} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no auth needs, no freshness/caching behavior, no note on what 'onboarding event' identifiers are accepted.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy of a rich definition.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description could carry return-value meaning, but it only says 'current status' without shape. Combined with zero parameter coverage for a generic params wrapper, the definition leaves the agent unable to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and both parameters (params, params_json) are opaque additionalProperties wrappers. The description references a 'specified onboarding event' but never explains how to specify it, so the agent cannot map that phrase to either parameter.
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 (Returns) and resource (current status of an onboarding event), so an agent knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like servicenow_get_devops_change_info or servicenow_check_devops_change_control, leaving the 'devops onboarding' scope ambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must guess whether this is for polling deploy pipelines, plugin onboarding, or artifact registration among many devops siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.