servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool clones an artifact, implying a write operation that creates a new entity, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the clone inherits properties, potential side effects, or error conditions. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at automation use but adds minimal behavioral insight. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief contextual tag. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. Every element earns its place 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 write operation cloning artifacts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'artifact' entails in this context, the cloning behavior (e.g., deep vs. shallow copy), or return values. The '[Scripting]' tag adds minimal context, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable use.

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, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'new_name' and 'target_scope' define the clone's attributes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Clone') and resource ('platform artifact'), specifying it creates a new version with a different name/scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_artifact' or 'update_artifact' by focusing on duplication rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'copy_record' or 'duplicate_artifact' if they exist, keeping it from 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 mentions '[Scripting]' which might imply automation contexts, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when cloning is appropriate over creating anew, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_artifact' or 'copy_record'. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.

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