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 the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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 and includes the key prerequisite. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 this is a mutation tool (creating new records) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on errors, or provide sufficient behavioral context. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing information about a 9-parameter write operation.

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%, with all 9 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Customer Service case'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create' tools in the sibling list (like create_incident, create_hr_case, etc.) beyond specifying it's for Customer Service cases specifically.

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 one explicit usage guideline: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (like create_incident for IT issues or create_hr_case for HR issues), nor does it mention 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.