create_update_setCreate a new update set to track customizations in ServiceNow, specifying its name and optional parent and description.
Create a new update set for tracking customizations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the update set | |
| parent | No | Parent update set sys_id (for batch sets) | |
| description | No | Description of the update set |
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?
The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions, duplicate handling, or side effects. It is not misleading but does not go beyond the annotations.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the purpose. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., the new sys_id) or any potential failure modes, which would be useful but not essential for this straightforward operation.
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 schema covers all parameters (name, parent, description) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The tool description provides no additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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), the resource (update set), and the purpose (tracking customizations). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_update_set and list_update_sets, which are read operations, and create_record, which targets a different resource.
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. While the resource type (update set) differentiates it from create_record or create_ci, there is no direct mention of when this should be preferred or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must have an active update set).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.