Schedule a ServiceNow notification rule for future delivery by providing its sys_id and a cron expression or ISO date. Set active status to enable or disable the scheduled notification.
[Write] Schedule a notification for future delivery
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Whether the notification is active | |
| schedule | Yes | Cron expression or ISO date | |
| notification_id | Yes | Notification rule sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the prefix '[Write]' which simply restates the readOnlyHint=false annotation, and 'future delivery' adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or whether this replaces existing schedules. Given annotations already indicate a write operation, the description provides no additional transparency.
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 communicates the core purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized, though it omits potentially valuable detail. No redundancy or structural issues.
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?
With three parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or scheduling semantics (e.g., cron vs ISO date behavior). The lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail makes this incomplete for a non-trivial write operation, especially given the large sibling tool context.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema is the primary source of parameter meaning. The description itself does not mention any parameter details or add further insight, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'schedule' with resource 'notification' and the scope 'for future delivery', making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like create_notification or trigger_scheduled_job, which could be similar in function.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_push_notification or schedule_cab_meeting. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.