Retrieve all input fields for a ServiceNow decision table using its sys_id to inspect the data required by its decision logic.
List the inputs of a decision table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the decision table (sys_decision) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only nature and potential partial results. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects, error conditions, or what 'inputs' entails, so it does not exceed the annotation baseline.
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, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the purpose without redundancy.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequate but does not explain what 'inputs' means in terms of return format or scope. The openWorldHint annotation hints at partial results, but the description leaves the agent to infer the exact output shape, which is a minor gap.
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 description for the single parameter (decision_sys_id) is complete and clear, specifying the sys_id of the decision table. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('inputs of a decision table'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_decision_tables and list_decision_answers by focusing on 'inputs', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where list_decision_inputs is preferred over list_decision_answers or get_decision_table, nor any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.