servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the dashboard becomes immediately visible, what permissions are needed beyond WRITE_ENABLED, or what the typical response format is). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose and a key requirement without any wasted words. 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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but functional context. It covers the basic purpose and one requirement, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of creating a dashboard, this leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (like explaining format constraints for 'roles' or implications of 'active' setting). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Performance Analytics dashboard'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_report' or 'create_kpi' that also create analytics artifacts, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context about when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over other dashboard-related tools (like 'update_dashboard' or 'get_pa_dashboard') or mention any prerequisites beyond the WRITE_ENABLED flag.

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