Retrieve and filter change requests from ServiceNow to track IT infrastructure modifications, monitor progress, and manage workflows with customizable parameters.
List change requests from ServiceNow
| 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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format they return, or any rate limits. For a list operation with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 what it does convey, though it's under-specified rather than concise.
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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'list' means operationally, what data is returned, how to filter results, or how this tool fits within the broader ServiceNow context provided by sibling tools.
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 zero information about parameters, while the schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't mention any filtering capabilities, pagination options, or query parameters, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 change requests from ServiceNow' states the basic action (list) and resource (change requests) but is vague about scope and filtering capabilities. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_incidents' or 'list_changesets' beyond mentioning 'change requests' specifically.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'get_change_request_details' for single records or how it differs from other list tools like 'list_incidents' or 'list_changesets'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.