servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the requirement for 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', indicating permission needs. However, it lacks details on other aspects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the user is already in the group, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, and return values. For a tool that modifies group membership, more context on side effects or confirmation would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('user_sys_id' and 'group_sys_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format examples or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a user to a group') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove_user_from_group' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user/group management tools beyond that basic contrast.

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 an implied usage context through the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', suggesting when the tool can be used (when write permissions are enabled). However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_user' or 'update_group', nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where it should not be used.

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