List UI Builder components in your ServiceNow instance to discover available macroponents, with optional scope filtering and record limits for targeted searches.
List available UI Builder components (macroponents) in the instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| scope | No | Filter by scope/app |
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 those. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, such as 'available', which hints at filtering by visibility. No behavioral details like pagination or return format are disclosed, but the annotations cover the main safety profile.
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 that conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and resource, making it easy to scan. The only minor issue is the typo 'macroponents', but it does not detract significantly from clarity.
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 with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the resource and scope. However, it does not explain what the response contains or whether pagination is applicable, and the typo causes minor uncertainty. Given the low complexity and good annotations, this is a passable but not exceptional level of completeness.
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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and scope), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantics or examples beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 action ('List') and the resource ('UI Builder components'), and explicitly scopes it to 'in the instance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_uib_pages or list_uib_data_brokers, which target different resource types.
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. It does not mention related tools like list_uib_pages or list_uib_data_brokers, nor does it specify any conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.