servicenow-api

Get service qualification

servicenow_get_service_qualification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a ServiceNow technical qualification request by ID or list all requests to review service qualifications and support API-driven workflows.

Instructions

Retrieves a technical qualification request by ID or list all.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "servicenow_get_service_qualification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No
`params_json`	No		{}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 fully covered. The description adds only that the tool can operate without an ID (list-all mode), which is modest extra context and nothing about pagination, filters, or response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a generic untyped params object, the description should carry more of the load. It omits pagination behavior, filter semantics, and the shape of the returned qualification request, so an agent cannot call it confidently beyond the trivial case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two parameters ('params', 'params_json') are opaque generic blobs. The description mentions retrieval 'by ID', which gestures at the needed input, but never maps it to a parameter name or explains the params/params_json relationship, leaving the coverage gap largely unfilled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a technical qualification request') and even names the two operating modes (by ID or list all). It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling servicenow_check_service_qualification or from servicenow_process_service_qualification_result, so an agent must guess which one it wants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by ID or list all' hints at two modes but never says when to prefer this tool over check_service_qualification or process_service_qualification_result, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when-to-use guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server