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 states '[Write]' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the flow is immediately active, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus annotation) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., flow ID, success confirmation), error handling, or important behavioral context like whether the flow is draft or published after creation. The '[Write]' hint is minimal compensation for these gaps.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Flow Designer flow'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_subflow' or 'create_flow_action' that also create flow-related artifacts, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'create_subflow' or 'create_flow_action'. The '[Write]' annotation hints at a write operation but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions, or contextual triggers for creating a flow versus other flow components.

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