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. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on existing portals), rate limits, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and includes a critical prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

Given the complexity of creating a portal configuration (6 parameters, 2 required) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances beyond the basic prerequisite, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('new Service Portal configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_portal_page' or 'create_portal_widget', but the specificity of 'Service Portal configuration' suggests a distinct scope.

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 clear context for usage with the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is essential guidance. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_portal_page' or 'update_portal', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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