Create a new UX Experience app shell in ServiceNow by providing a name and app sys_id, with an optional landing page.
Create a new UX Experience (app shell) configuration. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Experience name | |
| app_sys_id | Yes | UX app sys_id | |
| landing_page | No | Landing page sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description restates that this is a write operation ('[Write]') which is already implied by annotations (readOnlyHint=false), and adds no other behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing configurations. It provides no value beyond 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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. The '[Write]' tag is somewhat redundant but does not harm conciseness.
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 schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, making this minimally viable. However, the description lacks information about what a UX Experience configuration entails, how it relates to app shells, and any prerequisites or consequences. It leaves clear 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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no meaning beyond the existing schema parameter descriptions, so the 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 ('Create') and the specific resource ('a new UX Experience (app shell) configuration'), using 'app shell' to add specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create other UX artifacts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ux_app_route or list_ux_apps. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual clues for selecting this over other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.