Check if a change request is ready by returning its conflict status, approval state, affected CIs, and overlapping active changes.
One-call change readiness check. Returns the change request, its conflict status, approval state, affected CIs, and other active changes that overlap the same CI. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number_or_sysid | Yes | Change number (CHG...) or sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also adds specific behavioral details: returns 'conflict status' and 'other active changes that overlap the same CI,' indicating a cross-CI analysis that goes beyond a simple retrieval. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the schema. The openWorldHint is not contradicted.
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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('One-call change readiness check') and then listing the key outputs in a compact list. It is efficient, with no fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (returns multiple aspects of change readiness) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and high schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It omits details like response format, but since there is no output schema, the description does not fully enumerate return fields, but the essentials are present.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'number_or_sysid' with a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter context is needed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'One-call change readiness check.' It lists specific outputs (change request, conflict status, approval state, affected CIs, overlapping changes) and explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_change_request and list_change_requests by emphasizing the readiness assessment and conflict detection.
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?
The description indicates when to use it (for a readiness check) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It mentions 'one-call' efficiency but doesn't state when to use get_change_request instead. Given the naming and description, an agent could infer usage for pre-approval assessment, but explicit guidance on when not to use it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.