Update a ServiceNow knowledge article by specifying its system ID and the fields to change, enabling corrections or content refreshes.
Update a knowledge article (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update (e.g., {"text": "...updated content..."}) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the article |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that the tool writes (readOnlyHint=false) and is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful environment context, but does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the article is not found.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes the only critical prerequisite in a parenthetical, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or success/failure behavior, but it does not. It also does not mention whether the update replaces or merges fields, or if the article must be in a particular state. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 description coverage is 100% for both sys_id and fields. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 'Update' and a clear resource 'knowledge article'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_knowledge_article, publish_knowledge_article, and retire_knowledge_article by implying the action is modifying an existing article.
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 a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_knowledge_article or publish_knowledge_article. The usage context is implied by the verb 'update' but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.