Find ServiceNow transform maps by name, target table, or query. Filter data import mappings for tables like incident.
List Transform Maps used for importing data into ServiceNow tables
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| query | No | Search by name or target table | |
| target_table | No | Filter by target table name (e.g. "incident") |
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`, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds domain context ('importing data into ServiceNow tables') but does not disclose behavior such as default limit, pagination, or ordering. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, a middle score is appropriate.
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 delivers the core message without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action 'List Transform Maps' and follows with relevant context. No waste.
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 operation, the description is adequate but lacks context about its relationship to other transform map tools, such as `get_transform_map` or `list_transform_field_maps`. With no output schema and only sparse behavior details, a bit more information would help the agent decide when to use this tool, but it is not severely incomplete.
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 all three parameters (`limit`, `query`, `target_table`) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is applied.
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 'List Transform Maps' with a specific verb and resource, and adds context about importing data into ServiceNow tables. It distinguishes from sibling `get_transform_map` by the plural 'List' vs singular 'get', but does not explicitly call out the difference.
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 on when to use this tool versus related siblings like `get_transform_map`, `run_transform_map`, or `list_transform_field_maps`. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.