servicenow_get_product_inventoryRetrieve product inventory records from ServiceNow to check stock levels. Filter by status, customer, or place for targeted inventory reporting.
Retrieves a list of all product inventories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| customer | No | ||
| place_id | 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 no behavioral context beyond annotations—no pagination behavior, no rate limits, no auth requirements, and no indication of how filtering or field selection affects the result.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of verbosity, which is a positive. However, it is so thin that it fails to convey necessary context for a six-parameter tool, making it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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?
With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. Annotations cover safety, but the description still leaves pagination, filtering, and field selection entirely unexplained.
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 has 0% description coverage across six parameters (limit, fields, offset, status, customer, place_id), and the description provides no parameter guidance at all. Worse, 'all product inventories' contradicts the existence of filter parameters, leaving the agent unable to infer their purpose or usage.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Retrieves a list of all product inventories'), but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name and title. It provides no differentiation from siblings (e.g., delete_product_inventory), and the word 'all' is inaccurate given the presence of filter parameters like status, customer, and place_id.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The agent receives no information about when this tool should be selected over similar retrieval tools or how it relates to sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.