Skip to main content
Glama
aartiq

NowAIKit

by aartiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_scoped_app

Create a new scoped application in ServiceNow App Studio (WRITE_ENABLED=true), auto-deriving or correcting the vendor-prefixed scope from the instance’s registered vendor code.

Instructions

Create a new scoped application in App Studio (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true). The scope follows x__, where is the instance's REGISTERED vendor prefix (glide.appcreator.company.code), not an arbitrary value. Leave scope blank to auto-derive it from the instance vendor prefix + app name; if you pass a scope whose vendor segment differs from the instance prefix, it is corrected to the registered one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logoNoApp logo attachment sys_id (optional)
nameYesHuman-readable application name
scopeNoOptional. Scope like "x_<instanceVendor>_myapp". If omitted, derived from the instance vendor prefix + app name. Must start with "x_".
activeNoActivate the app immediately (default: true)
vendorNoVendor or author name
versionNoApplication version string (e.g. "1.0.0"). Defaults to "1.0.0".
descriptionNoFull description of the application
short_descriptionNoShort description shown in the app list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.16.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Unique scope prefix, e.g. \"x_myco_myapp\". Must start with \"x_\"."New value: +"Optional. Scope like \"x_<instanceVendor>_myapp\". If omitted, derived from the instance vendor prefix + app name. Must start with \"x_\"."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "scope"
-]New value: +[
+  "name"
+]
  2. First observedv4.1.6

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal (only hints), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the strict scope pattern (x_<vendor>_<appname>), that the vendor must be the registered prefix, auto-derivation when blank, and that an incorrect vendor segment is corrected to the registered one. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that helps the agent avoid errors.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and prerequisite, then explains the tricky scope logic. Every sentence earns its place; it is both concise and highly informative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the most complex aspect (scope handling) and the prerequisite. It does not describe the return value (though there is no output schema), nor failure modes for unregistered vendor prefixes. However, for an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it addresses the critical ambiguities. Minor gaps remain but are not severe.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds significant semantic detail for the scope parameter: it explains the derivation rule and correction behavior, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Optional. Scope like...' text. This extra context is valuable and raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create a new scoped application in App Studio' — a specific verb and resource. It also explains the scope naming convention and auto-derivation, which differentiates it from related tools like get_scoped_app, update_scoped_app, and list_scoped_apps. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' and explains when to omit scope (to auto-derive) versus providing it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of update_scoped_app when creating'), but the creation intent is clear from the name and description, making the usage context implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools