servicenow_get_flow_metadataFetch rich metadata for any ServiceNow flow/subflow using its sys_id. Inspect structure, stages, and configuration for troubleshooting or documentation.
Fetch rich metadata for any flow/subflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_sys_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 without the description's help. The description adds only the scope detail that both flows and subflows are supported; it says nothing about permissions, payload size, or failure behavior, so it neither adds much nor contradicts the annotations.
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 zero filler, which is well structured. It is arguably too terse given how little else is documented, but there is no wasted language.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still omits what 'rich metadata' comprises, how to obtain a flow_sys_id, and any usage context. For a tool in a large ambiguous sibling namespace, this is insufficient.
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 single required parameter flow_sys_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, the agent gets no help beyond the self-explanatory parameter name.
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 clear verb (Fetch) and resource (metadata for flow/subflow), and the scope note 'any flow/subflow' is meaningful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any sibling or clarify what kind of metadata is returned versus other flow-related tools like servicenow_workflow_to_mermaid.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the large sibling set. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the tool for inspecting flow definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.