Retrieve active SLA records using optional query filters and a configurable limit. Track SLA status and compliance without manually searching ServiceNow.
List active SLA records with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 10) | |
| query | No | Encoded query filter |
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, informing the agent this is a safe read operation that may return a partial view of data. The description adds no further context beyond the parameters, such as pagination behavior or what 'active' means, so it provides minimal added transparency.
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 words. Every part is informative, and it follows the expected 'verb + resource + qualifier' structure.
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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify return format or point to related tools like get_sla_details for full details. It also omits what 'active' means, how filters are encoded, or any pagination details. This is a bare-minimum description that leaves the agent guessing about list behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, with 'limit' and 'query' already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema says, so it does not compensate or enhance the structured parameter definitions.
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 lists active SLA records, using 'list' as a specific verb with a resource. It distinguishes from get_sla_details (singular retrieval) and list_csm_case_sla (CSM-specific) by implying it returns multiple SLA records filtered by active status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_sla_details for individual SLA details or any exclusions for other list tools. Context implies it is the default for active SLA lists, but that is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.