Retrieve GRC controls from ServiceNow with optional filters for risk, state, and record limit. Use to audit or review compliance controls.
List GRC controls with optional filter by risk or policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| state | No | Filter by control state (draft, attest, review, exception, compliant, non_compliant) | |
| risk_sysid | No | Filter controls by related risk sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds little beyond what annotations provide, and it inaccurately references a 'policy' filter that does not appear in the schema, which could mislead the agent.
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 filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to read and understand.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, low complexity), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps: it omits the 'state' and 'limit' parameters, doesn't clarify the policy filter absence, and provides no information about return structure or pagination. It is complete enough for a basic read-only list, but could be stronger.
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 descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema; it actually introduces confusion by mentioning a policy filter that is not a parameter. No extra syntax, format, or behavioral details are provided.
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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('GRC controls'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_grc_risks and list_compliance_policies. However, it mentions filtering 'by risk or policy' while the schema only includes risk_sysid, introducing slight ambiguity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The optional filter mention is implicit but not actionable. There is no 'use this when...' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.