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 mentions the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what 'close' means operationally (e.g., whether it's reversible, what state transitions occur, if notifications are sent, or what the typical response looks like). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 states the action, required inputs, and prerequisite condition with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a permission prerequisite but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what happens after closure, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. While concise, it leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding of the tool's full behavior.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'close code and notes' which aligns with two parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of valid close codes beyond 'successful'/'unsuccessful', or format expectations for notes). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('close') and resource ('change request'), and specifies what information is needed ('close code and notes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_change_request' by focusing on closure rather than general updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other close operations like 'close_incident' or 'close_csm_case'.

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 usage context by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_change_request' for status changes, or when closure is appropriate versus other change request states. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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