Retrieve the audit trail of changes to a specific ServiceNow system property, including modification history and past values. Use it to track configuration changes and identify when or why a property was altered.
Get audit history of changes to a system property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Property name | |
| limit | No | Max audit records (default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns audit history of changes, but provides no additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or what fields are included.
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 directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words or repetitive content.
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 tool is simple, with clear annotations, fully documented parameters, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does for an agent to use it effectively, and there are no missing contextual 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'limit') already described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 tool's function: 'Get audit history of changes to a system property.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('audit history of changes to a system property'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_property or list_system_properties.
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 implies usage (to retrieve audit history) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_property or list_system_properties. No exclusions or context on when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.