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. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the requirement for 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies permission/configuration needs. However, it doesn't describe what 'complete' means operationally (e.g., status changes, side effects, whether it's reversible), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a mutation tool.

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 action and includes essential prerequisite information. There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by contributing to clarity or usage guidance.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies task state, more context about what 'complete' entails would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters ('sys_id' and 'close_notes'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Mark a task as complete') and specifies the resource ('task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'close_incident' or 'resolve_problem' which might have similar completion semantics, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 implicit usage guidance by mentioning 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' (which might handle partial updates) or other completion tools in the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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