Add new categories to organize content in ServiceNow knowledge bases. Define titles, descriptions, and hierarchical structures to improve information management and user navigation.
Create a new category in a knowledge base
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation operation but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a category ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and context.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.
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 description provides no information about parameters, while the schema has 5 parameters (active, description, knowledge_base, parent_category, title) with 0% description coverage in the schema. This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new category in a knowledge base'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_catalog_category' by specifying the knowledge base context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_categories' or other category-related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing knowledge base), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'list_categories' or 'create_catalog_category', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.