Run server-side JavaScript directly on ServiceNow instances to automate custom logic, perform bulk updates, or debug issues without modifying production workflows.
Execute a background script on the instance (server-side JavaScript). [Scripting]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Application scope (default global) | |
| script | Yes | JavaScript code to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the term 'background' but does not explain behavioral implications such as asynchronous execution, result retrieval, or side effects. Some context is added, but significant gaps remain.
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 an active verb and no redundancy. The [Scripting] category marker is harmless and helps agents classify the tool. It is appropriately 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 destructive, open-world script execution tool, this description is incomplete. It omits what 'background' means, how to obtain results, potential timeout or sandbox constraints, and any safety caveats. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling 'execute_script', leaving an agent without essential operational details.
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%: 'script' is documented as 'JavaScript code to execute' and 'scope' as 'Application scope (default global)'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specifies a clear action ('Execute') and resource ('background script'), with context that it is server-side JavaScript. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling 'execute_script', so the meaning of 'background' remains unclear.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_script, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The [Scripting] tag offers no practical direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.