List ServiceNow update sets by state (in progress, complete, ignore) with optional filters and limit to track deployment progress.
List Update Sets by state (in progress, complete, ignore)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| query | No | Additional encoded query filter | |
| state | No | State filter: "in progress", "complete", "ignore" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination, the default limit of 25, or that the 'state' parameter is optional (the schema indicates optionality, which the description might contradict by implying state is required). No contradiction with annotations, but significant gaps in disclosure.
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 is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 good schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage differentiation from find_update_sets and omits behavioral details like default limit and optional state, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, state) with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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), the resource (update sets), and the filtering dimension (state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_update_set, switch_update_set, and complete_update_set by focusing on enumeration rather than mutation or lifecycle operations.
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 alternatives such as find_update_sets or get_current_update_set. The description only states what it does, without addressing exclusions or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.