get_ciRetrieve a specific configuration item from ServiceNow CMDB by providing its sys_id. Optionally specify the class name to narrow the search.
Get a single CMDB configuration item by sys_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the CI | |
| class_name | No | CMDB class name | cmdb_ci |
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 read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description does not add extra behavioral details (e.g., return format, errors) but does not contradict 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary information. The schema is compact and well-organized.
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 read operation, the description provides enough context. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a get operation, and the tool's purpose is fully conveyed. A small addition about what it returns would make it fully complete.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions (100% schema coverage), so baseline is 3. The descriptions are minimal but sufficient for understanding the parameters' purpose, though they lack details like format or constraints.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('CMDB configuration item'), and the identifier method ('by sys_id'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ci, create_ci, and get_ci_relationships.
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 phrase 'by sys_id' implies usage when the specific identifier is known, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_record or list_ci, which would make the when-to-use even clearer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.