Modify existing ServiceNow script includes by updating their code, descriptions, access settings, or activation status to maintain custom business logic.
Update an existing script include in 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether the update is atomic/reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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 maximally concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid script include ID, what fields can be updated, what the update operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
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 beyond what's implied by the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters (1 required, 6 optional), the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and types without semantic guidance.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing script include in ServiceNow'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_article', 'update_catalog_category', etc., which all follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern without indicating what makes script includes unique.
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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing script include ID), when to use this versus 'create_script_include' or 'delete_script_include', or what constitutes a valid update scenario. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.