List ServiceNow Virtual Agent topics, applying filters for active status, category, and result limit to identify available conversation flows.
List Virtual Agent topics available in the instance (sys_cs_topic)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| active | No | Filter to active topics only | |
| category | No | Filter by topic category |
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, so safety is covered. The description adds only the source table sys_cs_topic, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as default filtering, pagination behavior, or permission requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical table name adds useful context without unnecessary verbosity.
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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling list_va_topics_full, so it is not fully complete in context.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters (limit, active, category) with 100% coverage, and the description does not add parameter-level context beyond what is in the schema. This warrants the baseline score of 3.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Virtual Agent topics available in the instance' with the table sys_cs_topic. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like list_va_topics_full or get_va_topic.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_va_topics_full or get_va_topic. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List', with no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.