Manage ServiceNow Scripted REST services and resources by listing or retrieving sys_ids for sys_ws_definition and sys_ws_operation records.
CRUD Scripted REST services + resources (sys_ws_definition/sys_ws_operation). Use list/get to find sys_ids. (confirm='approve')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| service | No | Service sys_id:<id> or name | |
| count_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.21.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It claims 'CRUD' but only lists list/get actions, which is contradictory and misleading. The required confirm parameter suggests destructive operations, yet only read actions exist. No details on side effects, authorization, or rate limits are given.
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 brief (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details. Given the tool's complexity, more focused information would improve usability.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, query filter syntax, or how count_only works. The discrepancy between CRUD and actual actions further reduces completeness.
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 coverage is 14% (only service has a description). The description adds that list/get are used to find sys_ids and that confirm must be 'approve', which provides some constraint. However, parameters like limit, offset, query, count_only are not explained at all.
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 identifies the tool as managing Scripted REST services and resources, and specifies using list/get to find sys_ids. It clearly indicates the resource type (sys_ws_definition/sys_ws_operation), distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, the mention of 'CRUD' is misleading since only list and get actions are available.
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 advises using list/get to find sys_ids, providing some usage guidance. It also notes the confirm parameter must be 'approve', implying a safety check. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.