Create survey and assessment definitions in ServiceNow. Specify a name and optional type, description, or fields to generate an asmt_metric_type record.
Create a survey/assessment definition (asmt_metric_type). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Survey name | |
| type | No | Metric type (e.g. "survey") | |
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| description | No | Survey 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, so the write nature is known. The description adds a useful precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not disclose behavior around duplicate names, how the nested 'fields' object is processed, or other side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given full parameter descriptions in the schema, this is minimally adequate for a create operation. However, the nested 'fields' object is left vague, and with no output schema, the agent must infer success/response behavior. The description covers the essential precondition but leaves operational gaps.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only slight context via 'asmt_metric_type' and does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('survey/assessment definition'), and the parenthetical asmt_metric_type precisely identifies the underlying table. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like send_survey and get_survey_results.
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 clearly indicates the required environment condition, 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which tells the agent when the tool is callable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create verb and resource make the intended usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.