Find and filter reusable Flow Designer action instances by name or category to reuse in your workflows.
List reusable Flow Designer action instances available in the environment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search actions by name or category | |
| category | No | Filter by action category (e.g., "ServiceNow Core", "Integrations") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the name, such as pagination, sorting, or what 'available' means. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal added value.
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 immediately states the verb 'List' and the resource, with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded.
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 straightforward list tool with 3 parameters well-described in the schema and safety annotations, the description is adequately complete. It could mention output format or scope, but given the simplicity, it suffices.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 tool lists 'reusable Flow Designer action instances', indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_flows' or 'list_flow_executions', missing a chance to clarify uniqueness.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what the tool does, without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.