set_current_update_setSets the specified update set as the active current update set in ServiceNow.
Set an update set as the current active update set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the update set to make current |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether the change is persistent or affects the current session, which could be useful.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more informative about what constitutes 'current active' or any side effects, but overall it provides enough context.
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 only parameter sys_id is described directly in the schema, and the description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what is already provided. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: setting an update set as the current active one. The verb 'set' and the resource 'update set' are explicit, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like create_update_set or list_update_sets.
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?
When to use this tool versus alternatives is implied by the name and description, but not explicitly stated. The description does not say 'use this to switch the active update set' or mention that create_update_set is for new ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.