get_recordRetrieve a specific ServiceNow record by its sys_id, optionally selecting only the fields you need.
Get a single record from a ServiceNow table by sys_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Comma-separated list of fields to return | |
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the record | |
| 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?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations; it clearly indicates a read operation. It does not mention missing-record behavior or field selection defaults, but the annotations already cover the side-effect profile.
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?
A single focused sentence with no filler, repetitions, or unnecessary details. It gets straight to 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 get-by-ID operation with read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit return format or error behavior, but those are not critical given the low complexity and clear schema.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating that lookup is by sys_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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?
Clearly states the action (Get), the resource (a single record from a ServiceNow table), and the key identifier (sys_id). This differentiates it from list_records, get_ci, and get_update_set without needing to inspect sibling schemas.
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 implies use when fetching one record by sys_id, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_records or when not to use it. No alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.