List Automated Test Framework (ATF) test suites from your ServiceNow instance. Use filters to show active suites or narrow results by query and limit.
List ATF test suites in the instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| query | No | Additional filter | |
| active | No | Filter to active suites only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the scope 'in the instance', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or whether archived suites are included. Given the annotations, this is acceptable 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted 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?
The tool is simple, and the combination of a clear purpose, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations makes it adequately complete for an agent to invoke. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a listing tool. The description could mention default behavior like the default limit, but the schema already notes default: 20, so this is covered.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters ('limit', 'query', 'active'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: 'List ATF test suites in the instance'. The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource 'ATF test suites' is clearly identified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_atf_tests' and 'get_atf_suite'.
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 clear context: it lists ATF test suites, so an agent would know to use it when enumeration of suites is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can differentiate it from related tools without additional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.