Skip to main content
Glama
tedorigawa001

ServiceNow-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_compliance_policies

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Compliance Policies (sn_compliance_policy). Filter by state or category.

Instructions

List Compliance Policies (sn_compliance_policy). Filter by state or category.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (default: 25, max: 1000)
queryNoAdditional raw encoded query appended with ^
stateNoState filter: draft, review, awaiting_approval, published, retired
categoryNo
display_valueNoReturn human-readable reference values (true) or both ("all")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / display_value
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return human-readable reference values (true) or both (\"all\")",
+  "oneOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "all"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max records (default 25)"New value: +"Max records (default: 25, max: 1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Additional raw encoded query appended with ^",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by state (draft, published, retired)"New value: +"State filter: draft, review, awaiting_approval, published, retired"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[]
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying table name for context but discloses nothing about return shape, pagination defaults, or scope limits, which is appropriate but leaves a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the resource and filter hints appear immediately. Slightly terse rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a schema documenting most parameters, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly. The only modest gap is no note on pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents limit, query, state (with enums), and display_value. The description only reiterates 'filter by state or category' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Compliance Policies' and even names the underlying table (sn_compliance_policy). It is reasonably distinguishable from get_compliance_policy/create_compliance_policy via the 'list' verb and sibling naming convention, but it does not explicitly call out the difference from get_compliance_policy or list_compliance_controls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Filter by state or category' hints at a common retrieval mode but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_compliance_policy (single fetch) or list_compliance_controls (related records). Usage is implied by the 'list' verb rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools