Retrieve available ServiceNow Instance Scan suites, optionally filtered by name, so you can select one to run.
List Instance Scan suites (scan_suite) available to run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search suites by name |
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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the suites are 'available to run', which implies a filtering behavior beyond a plain list. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, or what happens with large result sets. With annotations providing the safety context, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no redundancy. The essential information is front-loaded, and there is zero wasted text.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the resource and the filtering condition ('available to run'). It doesn't specify return fields, but that's not required when there's no output schema. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to siblings, which is covered in the usage_guidelines dimension.
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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and query are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 (List) and the resource (Instance Scan suites), which distinguishes it from other list tools. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_atf_suites, but the 'Instance Scan' qualifier is specific enough. The phrase 'available to run' adds a subtle filtering condition.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of other suite-listing tools or conditions under which one would choose this over, say, list_atf_suites. The description simply states what it does without any context on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.