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. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on duplicate IDs, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 the critical permission requirement. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, or behavioral details beyond the WRITE_ENABLED hint. For a tool that creates portal widgets with multiple components, 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no constraints on ID format, no guidance on template structure). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 widget') with specific components (template, CSS, scripts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_portal' or 'create_portal_page' by focusing on widgets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_portal_widget' or 'get_portal_widget' in the description text.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_portal_widget' or 'create_portal_page', nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond the environment variable.

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