Retrieve all roles assigned to a specific user in ServiceNow, including inherited roles, using sys_id, user_name, or email.
List roles granted to a user (sys_user_has_role), including inherited flag
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | User sys_id, user_name, or email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the inherited flag detail and the underlying table name, providing useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the 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 that front-loads the purpose and includes the key detail about the inherited flag, with no unnecessary 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 read-only list operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It mentions the inherited flag, and the annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of the parameter description ('User sys_id, user_name, or email'), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 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 (roles granted to a user), and the underlying table (sys_user_has_role), distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like grant_role and revoke_role. It also mentions the inherited flag, adding specificity.
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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing roles but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so an agent must infer context from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.