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 adds the behavioral trait 'Write' (indicating a mutation operation), which is useful beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose other critical behaviors like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., data sync impact), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a brief annotation ('Write')—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the essential action 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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions 'Write' but lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a configuration tool that likely affects system behavior, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 all three parameters (table, query, max_records) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Configure which tables/records are available offline in mobile.' It specifies the verb ('configure') and resource ('tables/records available offline'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'create_mobile_app_config' or 'configure_workspace_list' that might handle mobile settings differently.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., mobile app setup), exclusions (e.g., unsupported table types), or comparisons to other tools like 'create_mobile_app_config' or 'configure_workspace_list'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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