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. It includes '[Write]' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a write 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 8 words plus the '[Write]' annotation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'mobile layout' entails, what the expected output looks like, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of creating a layout configuration, more context would be helpful for the agent.

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 three parameters (name, table, type) with their descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 target resource ('a mobile layout for a specific view'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_mobile_app_config' or 'create_mobile_applet', which also create mobile-related resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.

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 are many sibling tools for creating various resources (e.g., 'create_mobile_app_config', 'create_portal_page'), but no indication of when this specific mobile layout tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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