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 mentions a prerequisite ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context, but it does not disclose other critical traits such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are needed beyond the flag, what happens upon approval (e.g., state changes, notifications), or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the purpose and includes a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action and has no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), does not explain the return values or outcome, and provides minimal guidance beyond a basic prerequisite. For a tool that modifies system state, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 clear documentation for 'sys_id' and 'comments'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Approve') and resource ('a pending approval request'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reject_request' or 'get_my_approvals', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 some guidance by mentioning 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_request' or other approval-related tools, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or context for selection.

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