Trigger ServiceNow Discovery scans to identify network and infrastructure assets. Provide schedule ID and optional MID server to execute the scan.
[Write] Trigger a ServiceNow Discovery scan for network/infrastructure
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mid_server | No | Optional MID server name | |
| schedule_id | Yes | Discovery schedule sys_id to run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the '[Write]' prefix is redundant. The description adds the scope ('network/infrastructure') but does not disclose potential side effects, asynchronous behavior, resource usage, or prerequisites beyond the schema. With annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal extra context warrants a middle score.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The '[Write]' prefix is brief and the verb+resource structure is immediately clear. Every word adds some value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple trigger operation.
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?
The description does not explain the outcome of the trigger (e.g., whether it returns a schedule execution ID), how to monitor the scan, or that it may be asynchronous. There is no output schema, so the agent lacks essential context about what happens after invocation. The description is too sparse for a tool with side effects and no output specification.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics—it does not explain how to obtain schedule_id (e.g., via list_discovery_schedules) or what mid_server does beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully describes the parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and identifies the resource ('ServiceNow Discovery scan') with a scope ('network/infrastructure'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_discovery_schedules (which lists schedules) and scan_vulnerabilities (which targets vulnerabilities). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_discovery_schedules should be used to find schedule_id, or that this is an action that triggers an asynchronous process. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.