Retrieve audit results and findings from ServiceNow with optional filters for state, severity, and record limit.
List audit results and findings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| state | No | Filter by state (open, in_progress, closed) | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity (critical, high, medium, low) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It does not mention pagination, ordering, default state filters, or any additional behavior, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action immediately, making it easy to parse.
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 that there is no output schema and the tool is a simple list operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks any notes about return value structure or filtering nuances. With strong annotations and schema coverage, the gap is only moderate.
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?
All three parameters (limit, state, severity) have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. The tool description adds no additional meaning or examples for the parameters, so it does not exceed the schema's coverage.
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 uses the verb 'list' with the resource 'audit results and findings', clearly indicating the tool lists audit data. However, it does not provide any context that distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set, such as list_active_events or list_security_incidents.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative tools. It solely states the action without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.