servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions needed beyond this flag, whether the creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 purpose and includes a critical prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 all 8 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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') and resource ('new service catalog item'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other 'create' tools in the sibling list (e.g., create_asset, create_incident), which would require specifying the domain or context of 'service catalog' more distinctly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool by stating the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', indicating it's for write operations with a specific configuration. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., update_catalog_item) or exclusions, but the context is clear for creation tasks.

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