Retrieve detailed information about a specific ServiceNow workflow, including configuration and optional version history, to understand its structure and behavior.
Get detailed information about a specific workflow
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for getting information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral traits.
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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more specific to improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to handle the 'include_versions' parameter, or the response format. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only one required parameter ('workflow_id'), the tool's purpose inherently implies its use. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter is straightforward (a workflow ID). The description's focus on 'specific workflow' aligns with the parameter, adding minimal but adequate context beyond the schema.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific workflow', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_activities' or 'list_workflows'. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' entails.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_workflows' for listing workflows or 'get_workflow_activities' for activity details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.