Create a new epic in ServiceNow with a required title. Optionally include a description and project sys_id for tracking goals.
Create a new epic (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| short_description | Yes | Epic title | |
| description | No | Epic description and goals | |
| project | No | Project sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful context not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return value or side effects, so credit is partial.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple with full schema coverage and annotations. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain the return value (no output schema exists). Still, for a straightforward create operation, the provided information is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Create a new epic' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_epic and list_epics. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately clear.
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 such as update_epic or create_story. The only extra information is the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.