get_system_propertiesQuery ServiceNow system properties using optional filters such as name or nameLIKE to retrieve configuration values.
Query ServiceNow system properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of properties to return | |
| query | No | Filter query (e.g., 'name=glide.servlet.uri' or 'nameLIKEglide') |
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 does not contradict the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the verb 'query' aligns with them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or side effects, so it stays at the baseline.
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, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the core information is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is straightforward and the description covers the basic action. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list vs. single object) or any pagination behavior, which could be relevant for an agent calling this tool. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (limit and query), including an example for the query filter. The tool description adds no extra clarification, so it does not exceed the baseline expected from 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 tool queries ServiceNow system properties, and the tool name reinforces this. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a system property or the shape of the response, leaving some ambiguity.
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 sibling tools such as list_records or get_record. While the tool name implies specificity to system properties, an agent might still be uncertain about the exact boundary of its applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.