List and inspect legacy ServiceNow workflows and their activities. Use for wf_workflow/wf_activity; for Flow Designer use manage_flow_designer.
LEGACY Workflow engine ONLY (wf_workflow/wf_activity). Most flows are Flow Designer -> use manage_flow_designer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| active | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| count_only | No | ||
| version_id | No | Specific version for activities | |
| workflow_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.24.83Input schema / properties / confirmRemoved value: -{
- "enum": [
- "approve"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "action",
- "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+ "action"
+]v1.21.21v1.21.13v1.18.41Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the useful scope constraint that this only touches legacy wf_workflow/wf_activity tables, but says nothing about whether operations are read-only, what permissions are needed, or any limits, despite the tool governing 8 parameters.
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?
Two compact sentences with the scope and the routing alternative front-loaded; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations and near-zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It resolves tool selection well but leaves the agent without enough to invoke it correctly.
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 only 13% and the description mentions no parameters at all, giving no meaning for query, active, limit, offset, count_only, workflow_id or the action enum. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 names the resource (LEGACY workflow engine) and its backing tables (wf_workflow/wf_activity), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling manage_flow_designer. It stops short of stating the actual operations, which are only visible in the action enum (list/get_activities).
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?
It gives an explicit routing rule: most flows are Flow Designer, so use manage_flow_designer instead. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly what an agent needs to pick the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.