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. While 'Create' implies a write operation and '[Write]' reinforces this, it lacks critical behavioral details: what permissions are needed, whether this triggers workflows/notifications, what happens if the case already exists, or what the response contains. The mention of 'standard tasks' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the '[Write]' tag feels redundant with 'Create'. No unnecessary elaboration is present.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'onboarding case' entails beyond 'standard tasks', doesn't describe the return value, and provides no behavioral context. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more detail 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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 ('employee onboarding case'), specifying it includes 'all standard tasks'. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_offboarding_case' by focusing on onboarding, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other case creation tools like 'create_hr_case' or 'create_csm_case'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. The sibling list includes many other case creation tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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