Raise a new GRC issue or finding in ServiceNow by supplying a short summary, source record, and optional field values.
Raise a GRC issue/finding (sn_grc_issue). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| source | No | Source record sys_id (control/risk/audit) | |
| description | No | Full description | |
| short_description | Yes | Issue summary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'Raise' adds little beyond that. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is a useful disclosure, but the description does not explain side effects, such as whether it links to source records, creates notifications, or updates related items. It adds a specific precondition but no deeper behavioral context.
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 sentence that states the action and the critical prerequisite. No filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. Perfectly concise.
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 clear schema and four parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it (e.g., versus creating a risk) and does not explain the relationship to source records (control/risk/audit) or the meaning of a 'finding' versus an 'issue'. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is mentioned but not elaborated. Given the tool's complexity (nested object, no output schema), more context would help.
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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter detail beyond the schema. It does not clarify what 'fields' object contains or how 'source' relates to the issue, but the schema covers basic meaning.
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 verb ('Raise') and the resource ('GRC issue/finding' with table sn_grc_issue). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_grc_risk, create_grc_control, and list_grc_issues, and the name itself signals the action. No ambiguity.
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 only mentions the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_grc_risk or create_grc_control. It does not state when not to use it or what scenarios it is best suited for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.