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. While '[Write]' in bold indicates a write operation, it doesn't describe what happens upon creation (e.g., whether a risk ID is returned, if notifications are triggered, or if specific permissions are required). For a mutation 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 extremely concise - just one sentence with a bold annotation. Every word serves a purpose: identifies the action, resource, and operation type. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 write operation with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions might be needed, whether there are validation rules beyond the schema, or how this fits into broader GRC workflows. The '[Write]' annotation helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (like explaining what GRC risk categories typically exist or how impact/likelihood scores are used). This meets 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new GRC risk entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_asset' or 'create_incident' beyond the GRC risk domain, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other creation tools, or any context about typical GRC risk management workflows. The sibling list includes many other 'create_' tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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