Retrieve categories from a ServiceNow knowledge base with filtering options for knowledge base ID, parent category, active status, and search queries.
List categories 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('list'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though the schema suggests it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering capabilities implied by parameters, the return structure, or how it integrates with the knowledge base system. For a tool with rich parameters but minimal description, this leaves significant gaps.
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 mentions 'knowledge base' but doesn't explain its role as a filter or identifier. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has descriptions, but they're not counted in coverage), the description fails to add any meaningful context about the 6 parameters (e.g., 'active', 'parent_category', 'query'), leaving them undocumented 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 'List categories in a knowledge base' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('categories'), but it's vague about scope and functionality. It doesn't specify whether this lists all categories globally, only top-level categories, or includes nested structures, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_catalog_categories' or 'list_knowledge_bases'.
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. There are multiple sibling listing tools (e.g., 'list_catalog_categories', 'list_knowledge_bases'), but no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.