Create a compliance control in ServiceNow with required name, description, profile, and custom fields. Ensure WRITE_ENABLED=true to authorize the control.
Author a compliance control (sn_compliance_control). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Control name | |
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| profile | No | Related profile/entity sys_id | |
| description | No | Control description |
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=false, and the description's 'Author' is consistent with that write profile — no contradiction. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond annotations: the WRITE_ENABLED=true permission requirement. However, it doesn't disclose return value or side effects. Given annotations carry the read/write safety profile, the added permission note earns a 3.
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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the hard prerequisite stated second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. Efficient, if slightly terse.
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 create operation with a nested 'fields' object and no output schema, this is thin. The agent receives no guidance on what the nested fields object should contain, and no indication of what the tool returns. A create tool with no output schema would benefit from at least a line about the response.
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%, so all four parameters already have descriptive text. The tool description contributes nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a clear verb ('Author'), a specific resource ('compliance control'), and the exact table (sn_compliance_control). This distinguishes it from the sibling create_grc_risk, which targets a different GRC entity, and from list_grc_controls/run_control_test which are read/test operations. The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name its sibling differentiators.
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 on when to use this vs alternatives. The only extra statement, 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', is a permission prerequisite, not a routing rule. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over create_grc_risk or when an update (rather than a create) is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.