Resolve a problem in ServiceNow by submitting its system ID, root cause, and resolution notes to close it out.
Resolve a problem with root cause and resolution notes (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the problem | |
| root_cause | Yes | Root cause of the problem | |
| resolution_notes | Yes | How the problem was resolved |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true environmental constraint, but does not disclose behavioral details like state transition (e.g., marking the problem as resolved) or potential side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations but remains thin.
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 action and resource, then adds a necessary requirement in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the key prerequisite. It could be more explicit about the effect of resolving (e.g., setting the problem to a 'Resolved' state), but overall it adequately supports selection and invocation.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions covering their meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'root cause and resolution notes' which reinforces the schema but does not add new semantics. No additional detail on formats, allowed values, or relationships between parameters is provided.
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 ('Resolve a problem') and the resource ('problem'), with specific context ('root cause and resolution notes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_problem, get_problem, and update_problem by focusing on the terminal 'resolve' action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_problem or resolve_incident. The only non-obvious detail is the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.