Search the public ServiceNow Store catalog by keyword (no instance auth needed). Returns listing_id values usable with get_store_app_versions.
Search the public ServiceNow Store catalog by keyword (no instance auth needed). Returns listing_id values usable with get_store_app_versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords, e.g. "vulnerability response" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behaviour, so the description's added value is the auth disclosure ("no instance auth needed") and the identification of what the call yields (listing_id). That is real context an agent cannot get from the structured fields, though rate limits and result-shape detail are absent.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and auth caveat front-loaded and the output/next-step information delivered last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what corpus is searched, that no instance credentials are required, that results are listing_id values, and which tool consumes them.
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%: query has an example and limit has its default and maximum documented. The description only restates that querying is keyword-based without adding syntax, matching rules, or sorting semantics, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (search) applied to a specific resource (the public ServiceNow Store catalog) with the search mode (by keyword). It also names the follow-up sibling get_store_app_versions, so an agent can instantly tell this is the catalog-lookup half of a two-step flow rather than an installed-app or upgrade tool.
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 instance auth needed" plus the pointer to get_store_app_versions gives clear context for when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of explicitly excluding neighbours like list_scoped_apps (installed apps) or check_app_upgrade, so the boundary is implied by "public catalog" rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.