Retrieve SLA/OLA definitions from ServiceNow, filter by name, table, or active status to find relevant contracts.
List SLA/OLA definitions (contract_sla), optionally filtered by name, table, or active status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search definitions by name | |
| table | No | Filter to a collection/table (e.g. "incident") | |
| active | No | Filter to active definitions only |
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, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the table name and filter options, which is useful context, but does not disclose pagination behavior or any other side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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 waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the optional filters are listed concisely. Every element adds value.
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 readOnlyHint annotation and a schema that fully documents all parameters, the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the primary purpose and filters, though it does not mention default ordering or pagination behavior, which are minor gaps for a list tool.
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%, with each parameter (limit, query, table, active) having a clear description. The tool description reiterates the filters without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SLA/OLA definitions') with the underlying table name (contract_sla). It also mentions three distinct filter dimensions (name, table, active status), making it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_active_slas or get_sla_details.
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 typical list usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_active_slas or get_sla_details. There is no mention of exclusions or specific conditions that would favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.