servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') and technical details about script support (ES2021 async/await), which adds some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates resources.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and prerequisite, and another providing technical context. It's front-loaded with the core action and requirement, with no wasted words. However, the second sentence about ES2021 support, while relevant, could be integrated more seamlessly, slightly affecting structure.

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 creating a business rule with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, permissions), output format, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools. The prerequisite and script support are helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 clear documentation for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as explaining the purpose of 'when' enums or 'script' usage. This meets the baseline score since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Create a new business rule') and identifies the resource ('business rule'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_business_rule' or 'get_business_rule' in terms of when to use each, which prevents 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 an implied usage context by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_business_rule' or 'get_business_rule', and doesn't specify any exclusions or complementary tools.

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