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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as what happens on success/failure, whether the task is automatically assigned or requires follow-up, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses details like expected return values, error conditions, side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., 'update_hr_case'). The permission hint helps, but overall completeness is poor for this 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). With high schema coverage, 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 a task') and the target resource ('within an HR case'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_hr_case' or 'create_scrum_task' beyond the HR context, 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 includes a prerequisite condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_work_note' or 'create_scrum_task', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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