servicenow_unregister_ci_lifecycle_operatorUnregister a CI lifecycle operator for non-workflow users in ServiceNow to remove their access when they no longer manage configuration item lifecycle tasks.
Unregisters an operator for non-workflow users.
| 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 disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping note 'for non-workflow users' and does not explain what unregistering does, whether it can be undone, or what permissions are required.
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 avoids repetition. However, it is so terse that the qualifier 'for non-workflow users' is ambiguous and does not sufficiently earn its place without further detail.
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?
For a destructive operation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While annotations carry the safety profile, the agent still lacks essential context about the parameters and the operation's effects.
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 input schema has two parameters (params, params_json) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no information about these parameters, how they should be populated, or what values are expected.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Unregisters an operator.' The qualifier 'for non-workflow users' adds scope, though it does not explain what an operator is or name the sibling register_ci_lifecycle_operator. Still, the core action is immediately clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools such as register_ci_lifecycle_operator. The phrase 'for non-workflow users' implies a context but not an actionable usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.