Create a new ServiceNow role (sys_user_role) by providing a name, description, and additional field values. Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
Create a new role (sys_user_role). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Role name (e.g. "x_acme.approver") | |
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| description | No | Role description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, covering the mutation profile. The description adds a useful precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like potential conflicts or side effects beyond creating a role. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then states the prerequisite. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool is a straightforward create operation with well-documented parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite. However, it omits details on return values, error conditions, or behavior on duplicate names, and the nested 'fields' object is not explained beyond the schema. For a simple create, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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%, with all three parameters (name, fields, description) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 'Create a new role (sys_user_role)' with a specific verb and resource, including the underlying table name. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user or grant_role, which operate on different artifacts or actions.
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 such as grant_role or list_user_roles. The only additional hint is a prerequisite ('Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), but it does not explain selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.