servicenow_get_devops_plan_schemaFetch the schema for a specific DevOps plan to review field definitions and ensure correct data formatting in ServiceNow API requests.
Returns the schema object for a specific plan.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say how a plan is identified, what the returned schema object contains, or whether any permission is needed.
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 the brevity edges toward under-specification given the undocumented parameters.
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 carries the burden of explaining the returned value, and it does not. Combined with zero parameter documentation and no usage guidance, an agent has too little to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0% for both params ('params' is an untyped anyOf with additionalProperties, and 'params_json' is an opaque string). The description does not compensate — it never explains that a plan identifier must be passed or in what form, leaving the agent to guess the call shape.
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 and resource ('Returns the schema object') plus scope ('for a specific plan'), so an agent knows this is a read of a schema definition. However it gives no differentiation from close siblings in the same family such as servicenow_get_devops_code_schema and servicenow_get_devops_orchestration_schema.
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 stated prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling schema tools. It never explains when an agent should fetch a plan schema rather than a code or orchestration schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.