Define a dependency between two agile stories by specifying the blocked story and the blocker, linking them in ServiceNow.
Link one agile story as dependent on another (m2m_story_dependencies). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| story | Yes | The dependent story sys_id (the one that is blocked) | |
| dependent_story | Yes | The story it depends on (the blocker) sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement and the specific table name, but doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., duplicate dependencies, cycles) or what happens on success. This adds some context but doesn't go beyond the annotations significantly.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key requirement. There is zero filler, and every word contributes meaningful information.
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 simple M2M link operation with full schema coverage and annotations for write/intent, the description is sufficient. It could mention return values or duplicate handling, but these aren't critical for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The missing details are minor.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters completely with detailed descriptions explaining the direction (story is the blocked one, dependent_story is the blocker). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter meaning, so 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?
The description clearly states the action 'Link one agile story as dependent on another' and identifies the underlying M2M table (m2m_story_dependencies). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_story_dependencies and delete_story_dependency.
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?
It provides an operational prerequisite (Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. The use case is implied by the name and description, but there's no explicit guidance about exclusions or comparisons with list/delete dependency tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.