servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the prerequisite 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', indicating an authorization requirement. It also implies the incident must be 'resolved', adding a state precondition. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error conditions, or what 'close' entails operationally.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Close a resolved incident') and appends the critical prerequisite, making it highly scannable and effective.

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 is minimal but covers key prerequisites. It lacks details on what 'close' does (e.g., status changes, notifications), error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in operational context.

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%, with the single parameter 'sys_id' fully documented in the schema as 'System ID of the incident'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action ('Close') and target resource ('a resolved incident'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'close_change_request' or 'close_csm_case' beyond specifying the incident type.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' and 'resolved incident', suggesting prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'resolve_incident' or 'update_incident', leaving some ambiguity.

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