Retrieve ServiceNow PPM projects by applying encoded query filters and limits. Use to view project records efficiently.
List PPM projects (pm_project).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| query | No | Encoded query filter (e.g. state=open) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral disclosure beyond the resource name. It does not mention pagination behavior, return format, query encoding nuances, or any operational context beyond what the schema and name imply.
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 words or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the purpose and resource in minimal space.
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 two optional, well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of any return-value description or usage context means the agent gets little orientation beyond the tool name, so it is not maximally complete.
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 descriptive text for both parameters ('limit' and 'query'), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already present, matching the baseline score.
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 exact resource ('PPM projects (pm_project)'), distinguishing it from sibling operations like create_project, update_project, and list_process_automations. The parenthetical table name adds precision.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or update_project. The description does not mention filtering, pagination, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.