servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('Add or update') and marks it as '[Write]', implying mutation, but fails to detail permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (5 parameters, write operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Add or update' entails operationally, potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic parameter documentation. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying configuration of list views, so it meets the baseline score without compensating for or enhancing the schema's information.

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 ('Add or update') and resource ('a list view in an agent workspace'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workspace' or 'list_workspaces', which would require a more detailed comparison to achieve 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, such as other workspace configuration tools or list management functions. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for application, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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