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 prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some context about permissions. However, it fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Create' but not stated), what happens on success/failure, any side effects, rate limits, or the response format. For a creation 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 ('Create a new email notification definition') and includes a crucial prerequisite. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (8 parameters, creation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but omits behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), parameter usage context, and return values. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 8 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Notification name', 'Table that triggers this notification'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new email notification definition'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_notification' or 'get_notification' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create_*' tools (e.g., 'create_incident', 'create_user'), which keeps it from 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 provides an implied usage context by mentioning 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which hints at a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_notification' for modifications or 'get_notification' for retrieval), nor does it provide exclusions or detailed scenarios. This leaves the guidance somewhat vague.

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