Import configuration item data into ServiceNow CMDB tables via import sets. Enables bulk CI creation and updates to keep asset records accurate.
Import CI data into CMDB via import set. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Array of records to import | |
| table | Yes | Target CMDB table (e.g. cmdb_ci_server) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds little beyond the redundant '[Write]' marker and the mechanism 'via import set.' It fails to disclose potential side effects, such as whether existing CIs are updated or how data is transformed, which is critical for an open-world write tool.
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: 'Import CI data into CMDB via import set.' It is concise, contains no fluff, and the '[Write]' marker is a compact indicator. Every word contributes to its meaning.
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?
Despite a simple schema, this is a write operation with open-world semantics. The description does not explain the import set process, expected record structure, or side effects, nor does it relate to sibling tools like create_import_set_row or run_transform_map. An agent lacks sufficient context to fully appreciate the tool's behavior and consequences.
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 descriptions cover both parameters ('Array of records to import' and 'Target CMDB table (e.g. cmdb_ci_server)') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already handles the parameter documentation.
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 a specific action: 'Import CI data into CMDB via import set.' It identifies the resource (CMDB) and the method (import set), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cmdb_ci or create_ci_relationship. The wording is unambiguous and action-oriented.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. While it states what it does, it lacks the contextual 'when to use' information needed for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.