Verify OAuth access to a ServiceNow PDI and return a small sys_properties sample to confirm credentials and connectivity before running CRUD or flow operations.
Verify OAuth access to a ServiceNow PDI and return a small sample from sys_properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from sys_properties and returns a limited sample, which implies a non-destructive read, and names the auth mechanism (OAuth). It does not describe error behavior, credential prerequisites, or whether anything is mutated during the check.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the return value. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return shape adequately. It would be stronger if it said what a failed verification looks like, but no critical information for invoking it 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?
Only one optional parameter ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'small sample' loosely implies the limit governs sample size, but the description never names the parameter or explains its range/effect; the schema's default of 1 and max of 10 do most of the work.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Verify OAuth access to a ServiceNow PDI') and the observable result ('return a small sample from sys_properties'). This clearly separates it from the CRUD/flow siblings, which all operate on records rather than connectivity.
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 a diagnostic/validation use case via 'Verify OAuth access,' so an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check rather than a data operation. However, it never states when to prefer it over a real read (e.g. servicenow_list_records) or what a failure means for subsequent calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.