List ServiceNow Automated Test Framework (ATF) test cases with optional filters by test suite, active status, and result limit.
List ATF test cases, optionally filtered by suite
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| active | No | Filter to active tests only | |
| suite_sys_id | No | Filter by test suite 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema-defined filtering.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The entire description is concise and directly communicates the tool's function.
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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or default limit. Gaps exist.
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 the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline.
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 it lists ATF test cases with optional filtering by suite, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_atf_suites and list_atf_test_results.
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 implies usage for browsing test cases but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get functions. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.