List UI Policies for a ServiceNow table to review field visibility, mandatory, and read-only rules. Filter by table, active status, and result limit.
List UI Policies for a table (field visibility, mandatory, read-only rules) (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 25) | |
| table | No | Filter by table name | |
| active | No | Filter to active policies only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds the prerequisite SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true and explains what UI Policies are, providing context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the read-only hint and gives the agent actionable operational knowledge.
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?
Description is a single, front-loaded sentence. Each parenthetical serves a purpose: defining UI Policies and stating a prerequisite. No wasted words.
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, the description covers purpose, scope (table), and a key prerequisite. Without an output schema, it does not detail return structure, but 'List' implies a list result and the schema covers limit/filter parameters.
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% for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States 'List UI Policies for a table' with a parenthetical defining UI policies as field visibility, mandatory, and read-only rules. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ui_policy (singular) and other list_* tools.
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?
Provides context 'for a table' and the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_ui_policy for a single policy or create_ui_policy for creation. Use case is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.