Find outbound REST message configurations for external API integrations. Search by name or description and limit results to review how ServiceNow connects to external systems.
List outbound REST Message configurations (integrations with external APIs)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| query | No | Search by name or description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate the safe read nature. It adds a small amount of context by specifying 'outbound' and 'external APIs', but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, or return format. No contradiction exists.
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 that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It conveys the essential information without any fluff or redundant phrasing.
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, full schema coverage, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is adequate. It clearly identifies what the tool lists and the scope ('outbound', 'external APIs'). However, it could have mentioned that this is the list version complementing get_rest_message or list_rest_message_functions, so a small gap remains.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions ('limit' and 'query'), so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, maintaining 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 tool's function: 'List outbound REST Message configurations'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds clarifying context that these are 'integrations with external APIs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rest_message_functions or get_rest_message.
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 versus alternatives such as list_rest_message_functions or create_rest_message. It does not mention any specific use cases, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.