servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '[Write]' suggests a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether the KPI becomes immediately active, or any side effects. For a creation 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 at just one sentence, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, preventing a perfect score.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a KPI is in this context, what happens after creation, how to verify success, or any behavioral aspects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The description mentions creating from 'ServiceNow data' which hints at the table/field/aggregate parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's comprehensive 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 action ('Create') and resource ('Key Performance Indicator from ServiceNow data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other KPI-related tools (none appear in the sibling list), so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be preferred over other creation tools, or any context about typical use cases. The description is purely declarative without usage instructions.

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