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 permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some context about authorization needs. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like (especially with no output schema). This leaves significant gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no unnecessary words, 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a permission requirement but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or output format. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it meets a bare minimum threshold.

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, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'short_description' as 'Brief description of the problem'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 problem record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'create_' siblings like 'create_incident' or 'create_change_request' beyond the resource type, which is why it doesn't reach 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 some usage context by mentioning 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'create_incident' or 'update_problem'), nor does it provide exclusions or detailed scenarios, leaving the guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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