Retrieve tasks on a CSM case using case number or sys_id. Supports filtering to active tasks and setting a record limit.
List the tasks on a CSM case (sn_customerservice_task). Parity with ServiceNow CSM "Get Case Tasks"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case | Yes | CSM case number or sys_id | |
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| active | No | Only active tasks |
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 safety profile is known. The description adds the table name and parity note, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not enriching.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the parity reference adds context without padding.
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 list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. The parity note provides authoritative context, though it omits details like default ordering or return structure, which are 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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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') and the resource ('tasks on a CSM case'), identifies the underlying table (sn_customerservice_task), and references ServiceNow parity, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_csm_cases or get_csm_case.
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 implies usage for retrieving tasks on a specific case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is the canonical task-listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.