servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool ('Create') and hints at write operations with '[Write]', but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether it triggers workflows or notifications, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema). 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 states the core purpose upfront. The bracketed '[Write]' is slightly redundant but minimal. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be more structured with usage context.

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 change requests) with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a DevOps governance 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'pipeline' and 'environment'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a change request linked to a DevOps deployment for change governance.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('change request'), and context ('linked to a DevOps deployment for change governance'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_request' or 'submit_change_for_approval,' which appear related but have different scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'DevOps deployment' context, it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_change_request' (general) or 'submit_change_for_approval' (approval-focused). The bracketed '[Write]' hint implies a write operation but doesn't clarify usage scenarios.

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