ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update an existing scrum task,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the context, with every part earning its place by conveying the core action and resource efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for a tool of this nature without supplemental information.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., priority values explained as '1 is Critical, 2 is High'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing scrum task in ServiceNow'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools like 'update_story' or 'update_epic' among the siblings, which would require mentioning what makes scrum tasks unique.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scrum task ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new tasks), or compare it to siblings like 'create_scrum_task' or 'list_scrum_tasks', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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