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 discloses a key behavioral trait—the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement—which is crucial for permissions. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 key information (action and prerequisite) with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a creation operation with 5 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Create a new outbound REST Message definition') and specifies the resource ('REST Message'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_flow' or 'create_script_include' which also create definitions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool by specifying a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is valuable guidance. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (like 'get_rest_message' for reading), so it's not fully explicit about alternatives.

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