Update an existing ServiceNow scoped application by sys_id, modifying fields like name, version, or description. Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
Update an existing scoped application (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update (name, version, short_description, description, active, vendor, etc.) | |
| sys_id | Yes | App sys_id |
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a behavioral requirement not captured in annotations. It does not elaborate on side effects, but given the annotations, this additional context is valuable.
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 verb and resource ('Update an existing scoped application') and then adds a necessary requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 (2 params, both documented) and the presence of annotations covering read-only/destructive behavior, the description provides adequate context: purpose and required permission. It does not mention return behavior, but no output schema exists to expect that. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'update' entails (e.g., partial update), but it is sufficient.
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 both parameters (sys_id and fields) with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Update an existing scoped application' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the requirement 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. This distinguishes it from read-only operations and from create_scoped_app (which creates new apps) by using 'existing'.
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?
It provides clear context: use this tool to update an existing scoped application and it requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use create_scoped_app for new apps'), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.