Locate operational CIs that have relationships but no application service assignment, revealing mapping gaps for remediation.
Find operational CIs that have relationships but belong to no application service (mapping gaps). Parity with ServiceNow get_unmapped_topology
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max CIs to scan/return (default 100) | |
| ci_class | No | Restrict to a CI class/table (e.g. cmdb_ci_server) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does 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 useful selection semantics (operational CIs with relationships but no application service), but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or any additional operational behavior beyond what annotations and the description's predicate imply.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the ServiceNow parity reference is a useful compact anchor for familiar users without bloating the description.
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 read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters and no required arguments, the description covers the domain intent and selection criteria well. It could be even more complete by stating the return format or default limit behavior, but those are also covered by the schema and the tool's name.
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 (limit and ci_class) are already meaningfully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so 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?
States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('operational CIs'), and precise selection condition ('have relationships but belong to no application service / mapping gaps'). This clearly distinguishes it from related CMDB sibling tools such as cmdb_find_orphans and cmdb_find_stale at a glance.
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 clear use context: call this when you need to surface CIs that are related but not mapped to an application service. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, but the mapping-gap framing is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.