Retrieve the full content of a ServiceNow knowledge article by KB number or sys_id. Get the exact article text when you need details for issue resolution.
Get the full content of a knowledge article by number (KB...) or sys_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number_or_sysid | Yes | Article number (KB...) or sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful 'full content' detail and the KB number format. However, it does not disclose behaviors like permission requirements, not-found handling, or response structure. Given the readOnly annotation covers safety, the description provides moderate added value.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and identifier requirements. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 the low complexity (one parameter, simple read operation), the description is sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool does and the input needed. A minor gap is the lack of return value details, but that is not critical for a straight 'get by ID' tool.
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 single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Article number (KB...) or sys_id'), and the description repeats the same information without adding additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, this is the baseline score.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('full content of a knowledge article'), specifying the identifier format ('by number (KB...) or sys_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge and list_knowledge_bases.
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 is clear that this tool should be used when you already know the article's number or sys_id. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the context of sibling retrieval/search tools implies it is the direct fetch-by-ID counterpart. The lack of exclusions or alternatives keeps it slightly below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.