List on-call rotations from ServiceNow, filtering by group or name to find relevant schedules. Returns up to 50 records per query.
List on-call rotations (cmn_rota), optionally filtered by group or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Filter by group sys_id | |
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search rotations by name |
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, covering the read-only nature. The description adds the table name and filter semantics, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit default, or any other behavioral nuances.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It conveys all essential information efficiently.
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 read-only annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks any mention of the return structure, potential large result set considerations, or guidance distinguishing it from related on-call tools, leaving some gaps.
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 each parameter (group, limit, query) is already documented. The description merely summarizes these filters without adding new meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 lists on-call rotations (cmn_rota) with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_on_call_now and create_rota_schedule by focusing on listing, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 this is the standard list operation for rotations but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_on_call_now (current on-call) or create_rota_schedule (creation). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.