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 ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which hints at permission requirements, but does not cover other critical aspects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, or the expected 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 ('Create a new saved report on any table') and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 report with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on the return value (e.g., what is returned upon success, such as a report ID or confirmation), error handling, and behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete for effective tool use.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as examples of valid 'table' values beyond the schema's description or clarification on 'query' encoding. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 a new saved report') and the resource ('on any table'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_scheduled_report' or 'update_report', which would require mentioning the distinction between saved reports and scheduled reports or update operations.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some context for when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_scheduled_report' or 'update_report', and does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its application.

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