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 a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is useful, but fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 directly states the action and prerequisite without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, 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 tool's complexity (creating a scheduled job with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and fails to differentiate from siblings, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 scheduled script execution job', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_scheduled_report' or 'trigger_scheduled_job', which could cause confusion in selection.

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 to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'create_scheduled_report' for reports vs. scripts, or 'trigger_scheduled_job' for immediate execution). No exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.

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