Retrieve complete details of a ServiceNow scheduled job by providing its sys_id or exact name, enabling quick inspection of job configuration and status.
Get full details of a scheduled job by sys_id or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id_or_name | Yes | Job sys_id or exact name |
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 openWorldHint=true, covering the safe read-only nature. The description adds the 'full details' aspect and identifier types, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error behavior, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and lookup method. It is concise and front-loaded with no filler words or redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear schema, read-only annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It says what the tool retrieves ('full details') and how to identify the job, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most situations.
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 schema already fully describes the parameter (sys_id_or_name: 'Job sys_id or exact name') with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same information without adding further semantic detail, so it provides no value beyond the structured schema.
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 specific action: get full details of a scheduled job. It identifies the resource (scheduled job) and the lookup method (by sys_id or name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_scheduled_jobs.
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 when to use the tool: when you need full details of a specific scheduled job using a sys_id or exact name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over list_scheduled_jobs for a targeted lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.