create_recordCreates a new record in a specified ServiceNow table using provided field values.
Create a new record in any ServiceNow table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Record field values as key-value pairs | |
| table_name | Yes | The ServiceNow table name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or side effects beyond creating a record.
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 zero extraneous content. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
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?
For a simple create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of return behavior or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the table doesn't exist), which would be useful given the tool's generic scope.
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%, with both 'data' and 'table_name' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it meets the baseline 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 action 'create' and the resource 'a new record in any ServiceNow table', which distinguishes it from specific create tools like create_ci. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top tier for sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_record or create_ci. It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.