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 performs analysis but doesn't describe what the analysis entails (e.g., returns a report, list of dependencies, risk assessment), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.

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 complexity of impact analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., a dependency graph, risk score, affected services), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., timeouts for deep traversals). For a tool with significant potential output complexity, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('ci_sys_id' and 'depth') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'downstream impact' means in practice, how depth affects results). 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('downstream impact of a Configuration Item change or outage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_cmdb_ci' or 'search_cmdb_ci' by focusing on impact analysis rather than retrieval or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other analysis tools like 'analyze_data_quality' or 'ml_predict_change_risk'.

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 (e.g., needing a valid CI sys_id), when not to use it (e.g., for non-CI items), or what other tools might be relevant (e.g., 'get_cmdb_ci' for CI details first). Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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