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 for behavioral disclosure. While '[Write]' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the configuration is immediately active, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. 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 - just one sentence plus the '[Write]' annotation. Every element serves a purpose: the main sentence states the purpose, and '[Write]' provides behavioral context. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a mobile app configuration is, what happens after creation, whether there are constraints beyond the schema, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of creating configuration objects and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 - the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'description' parameter.

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 ('mobile app configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_mobile_app_config' or 'list_mobile_app_configs' by being a creation tool rather than a retrieval tool. However, it doesn't specify what a 'mobile app configuration' entails beyond the parameters, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'create_mobile_applet' or 'create_mobile_layout' from the sibling list. The only contextual hint is the '[Write]' annotation, but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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