Retrieve the answer rows from a ServiceNow decision table by providing its sys_id. Set an optional limit to control the number of results returned.
List the answer/result rows of a decision table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 100) | |
| decision_sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the decision table (sys_decision) |
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 isn't required to repeat those. It adds the notion of returning 'answer/result rows', which clarifies the content. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as default ordering, absence handling, or interaction with external systems beyond what openWorldHint implies.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It could arguably include more context, but structurally it is efficient.
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, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but does not explain what an 'answer/result row' is, how to obtain the decision table's sys_id (beyond the schema), or any edge cases like when no rows exist. Given the low complexity and annotation coverage, it is complete enough but leaves room for improvement.
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 both parameters (decision_sys_id and limit) are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any extra meaning—it does not mention parameters at all. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('answer/result rows of a decision table') clearly. It distinguishes from 'list_decision_tables' by targeting rows of a single table, but it does not explicitly call out any sibling like 'list_decision_inputs' to preempt confusion.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for selection, or when not to use it. Only the action is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.