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 context. However, it doesn't describe other important behavioral aspects: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what happens on failure, whether the article is published or in draft state after creation, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists).

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key prerequisite. Every element earns its place.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a permission requirement. However, it lacks important context about the creation behavior (draft vs. published state, response format, error handling) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools. Given the mutation nature and absence of annotations/output schema, it should do more to be complete.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('knowledge article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools in the sibling list (like create_incident, create_change_request, etc.) beyond the specific resource type.

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 ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (like update_knowledge_article or publish_knowledge_article from the sibling list), nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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