Create a new catalog category in ServiceNow to organize items, with support for parent categories and custom fields.
Create a catalog category (sc_category). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Category title | |
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| parent | No | Parent category sys_id (for sub-categories) | |
| catalog | No | Catalog sys_id (sc_catalog) | |
| description | No | Category description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., return of sys_id) or any failure modes, and openWorldHint=true is not explained. It provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but not richly.
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 a single sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and adds the crucial prerequisite. Every word 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?
For a simple create operation with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return value (likely sys_id), nor does it clarify openWorldHint implications or provide examples. Given the tool's simplicity, it meets a minimum viable level but leaves room for improvement.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described (e.g., title, fields, parent, catalog, description). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the table name. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 action (create), the resource (catalog category), and the specific table (sc_category). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_catalog_item and list_catalog_categories. It also notes the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, adding specificity.
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 implies it is for creating catalog categories but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_catalog_categories or create_catalog_item. The WRITE_ENABLED=true condition is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline for choosing this tool over others. Thus, guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.