servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses one behavioral trait (the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite). It doesn't mention whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics needed for safe invocation.

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 states the core purpose upfront. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or the broader context of change request management. The WRITE_ENABLED hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing behavioral context.

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 15 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not providing additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 ('change request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_devops_change' or 'create_incident', but the specificity of 'change request' is adequate for basic identification.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_devops_change' or 'create_incident'. There's no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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