Run ServiceNow flows in test mode using sample inputs to validate behavior before production.
Execute a flow in test mode with sample inputs. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_sys_id | Yes | Flow sys_id to test | |
| test_inputs | No | Test input values |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation contradiction: the description includes an explicit '[Write]' marker, while annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust. Additionally, no further behavioral details are disclosed (e.g., side effects, need for specific permissions, or what happens during test execution).
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 very short and front-loaded, but the '[Write]' marker is misleading and unnecessary, detracting from conciseness. It is not fully effective because the extra token creates confusion rather than adding value.
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 simplicity of two parameters and a clear action, more context is still needed: no output format, no usage guidance, and no clarification of the contradiction. The description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke this tool correctly, especially regarding what a test run returns or its side effects.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (flow_sys_id, test_inputs) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specifies a clear action ('Execute') and resource ('a flow') with a distinct mode ('test mode') and sample inputs. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trigger_flow or run_atf_test.
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. The phrase 'in test mode' implies a testing use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as trigger_flow or get_flow_execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.