Cancel pending approval requests on a ServiceNow record by marking approver rows as cancelled/no_longer_required. Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
Recall/withdraw approval requests on a record by cancelling pending approver rows (state → cancelled/no_longer_required). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record | Yes | sys_id of the record whose approvals to recall |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description directly contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint=true implies the tool does not modify data, but the description explicitly states it cancels pending approver rows, a write operation. This is a serious inconsistency that would mislead an agent about side effects.
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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action and mechanism, and includes the key prerequisite. Every clause adds information, and there is no 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?
The description covers the essential action and prerequisite, but it omits return value information and does not clarify the effect on the approval request overall (e.g., whether the entire request is withdrawn or just rows are cancelled). The contradiction with annotations further undermines completeness, as the agent cannot trust the described behavior.
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 describes the single parameter 'record' as the sys_id of the record whose approvals to recall, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, simply repeating that it acts on a record. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the action (recall/withdraw approval requests), the target (a record), and the mechanism (cancelling pending approver rows, changing state to cancelled/no_longer_required). It distinguishes itself from sibling approval tools like approve_request or reject_request by focusing on withdrawal, and it specifies a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true).
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 when to use it (to recall/withdraw pending approval requests) and explicitly states a requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like reject_request or submit_for_approval, or provide conditions for when not to use it. Still, the usage context is fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.