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 states the tool marks an update set as complete, implying a state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other systems, or has side effects (e.g., locking the update set). The '**[Scripting]**' tag adds minimal context about automation use.

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 very concise—a single sentence plus a tag—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, though the '**[Scripting]**' tag could be integrated more smoothly. It efficiently communicates the purpose without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (state change operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, migration implications, or error handling. The '**[Scripting]**' tag adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and usage information needed for safe invocation.

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' documented as 'Update Set sys_id'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain what a sys_id is, how to obtain it, or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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 an Update Set as complete') and the purpose ('ready for migration'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_update_set' or 'list_update_sets' by focusing on completion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 an existing update set), exclusions, or related tools like 'commit_changeset' or 'publish_changeset' that might handle migration stages. The '**[Scripting]**' tag hints at automation context but isn't explicit usage guidance.

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