Retrieve survey and assessment instances from ServiceNow by recipient, state, or survey definition to review submitted or in-progress evaluations.
List survey/assessment instances (asmt_assessment_instance) by state or user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Recipient user sys_id | |
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| state | No | Instance state (e.g. "ready", "complete") | |
| metric_type | No | Survey definition sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the non-mutating nature. The description adds the filtering capabilities but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default limit behavior (beyond the schema's mention), pagination, or the openWorldHint implications. It does not contradict annotations, but adds only minimal value beyond them.
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 front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the key filters. There is no unnecessary verbosity; it is efficient and immediately informative.
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 listing tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description is largely complete. It lacks an explicit statement of return format, but given no output schema, that is not strictly required. The openWorldHint suggests some nuance, but the description does not elaborate; still, the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with their meanings. The description's mention of 'by state or user' aligns with the schema but does not add any new semantics or clarify edge cases. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.
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 action (List), the resource (survey/assessment instances) with a specific table name (asmt_assessment_instance), and the primary filtering dimensions (state or user). This is specific and distinguishes it from other listing tools like list_csm_cases or list_security_incidents.
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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context on selection among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the go-to for listing assessments, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.