List ServiceNow catalogfulfillment tasks, filtering by request item, assignment group, or state.
List catalog fulfillment tasks (SCTASK), optionally by request item, assignment group, or state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| active | No | Filter to active tasks only | |
| request_item | No | Parent RITM sys_id | |
| assignment_group | No | Assignment group 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds little. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or default behavior beyond the schema. The claim of filtering by 'state' is inconsistent with the schema, though it does not contradict the annotations.
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, but it includes the inaccurate 'state' reference and omits useful context like default limit or pagination. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.
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 list tool with all parameters documented in the schema and read-only annotations, it is largely complete. However, the state mismatch and lack of guidance on when to choose this tool over similar list tools leave gaps. The absence of an output schema is not critical for a list operation.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the description does not need to re-explain them. However, it introduces 'state' as a filter that has no corresponding parameter, which is misleading. It also fails to clarify that 'active' is a boolean state filter.
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?
States a clear verb and resource ('List catalog fulfillment tasks (SCTASK)') which distinguishes it from generic list tools. However, it mentions filtering by 'state' which is not an actual parameter, creating mild ambiguity about the tool's scope.
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?
Implies usage for catalog fulfillment tasks and lists optional filters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_csm_case_tasks or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'state' is misleading since no state parameter exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.