get_update_setRetrieve detailed information for a specific ServiceNow update set using its sys_id.
Get details of a specific update set by sys_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond confirming it is a read operation, which is consistent with annotations. It does not describe return format or error handling, but given the annotation coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 has only one parameter and no output schema, and the description plus annotations fully convey its purpose and safety. An agent can correctly invoke it with just the sys_id, and the read-only, idempotent nature is already declared. Nothing essential is missing.
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%, so the parameter 'sys_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by sys_id' but does not add additional meaning, such as format requirements or special cases. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 is warranted.
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 verb 'Get details' with the specific resource 'update set' and identifies the key parameter 'sys_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_update_sets' (which lists) and 'get_record' (generic), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool is used to retrieve details of a specific update set, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on how it compares to sibling tools like 'list_update_sets' or 'get_record'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.