ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it updates an existing story but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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 this is a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what happens after invocation. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing story in ServiceNow'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_epic' or 'update_scrum_task' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 to fetch a story first), compare it to 'create_story', or indicate any constraints like permissions or workflow states. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate selection.

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