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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metrics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON, dashboard view). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 ('Get CMDB data quality metrics') and adds clarifying scope ('completeness of server and network CI data'). There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (retrieving metrics, which could involve data processing), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the metrics include (e.g., percentages, counts), how they are calculated, or the return format. For a tool that likely outputs structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent on interpreting results, making it inadequate for the task.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline score of 4 is given because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics (none exist), and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CMDB data quality metrics'), and specifies the scope ('completeness of server and network CI data'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_data_quality' or 'check_table_completeness' by focusing on CMDB-specific metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cmdb_impact_analysis', which might be a closer sibling, preventing 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after data imports or for compliance checks), or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring). With many sibling tools like 'analyze_data_quality' and 'check_table_completeness', the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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