Retrieve customer accounts from ServiceNow with optional name search and active-only filter. Use to find accounts by name or limit results.
List customer accounts with optional search filter
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search accounts by name | |
| active | No | Filter to active accounts only (default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds little beyond that. It fails to mention default limit, pagination, or that active defaults to true, which are behavioral details an agent might need.
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 with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borderlines on under-specification rather than efficient writing.
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 without an output schema, the description should clarify return format or default behavior. It does not, leaving the agent to infer important details about pagination, filtering semantics, or response structure.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional search filter' aligns with the query parameter but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'customer accounts', which matches the tool's name. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like list_csm_contacts or list_csm_cases, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
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 such as get_csm_account or list_csm_cases. The 'optional search filter' hint is not enough to establish clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.