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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether this creates a draft or published action, what happens on duplicate names, or any rate limits. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at code execution but doesn't explain implications.

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 - just 6 words plus a tag. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element ('Create a custom Flow Designer action. [Scripting]') serves a purpose, making it efficiently structured.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Flow Designer action' is conceptually, what the creation entails (draft vs published), what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The '[Scripting]' tag adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual information.

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 basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema - no examples, formatting requirements, or constraints beyond the schema's documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('custom Flow Designer action'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_flow' or 'create_subflow' - all involve creating flow-related artifacts, so the distinction isn't explicit.

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. With many sibling tools that create various artifacts (flows, subflows, UI actions, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific action creation tool is appropriate versus other creation tools in the flow/automation domain.

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