servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite (a behavioral constraint) and uniqueness/pattern requirements for the scope. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like what happens on duplicate scope, whether creation is idempotent, response format, or error conditions. It adds some value but leaves 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and prerequisite, the second adds the key constraint. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the prerequisite and scope pattern, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity and absence of structured safety/behavior annotations, it should provide more context about what 'create' entails operationally.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning the scope pattern constraint ('x_<vendor>_<appname>'), which is already implied in the schema's description for 'scope'. No additional parameter context is provided beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 scoped application') and resource ('in App Studio'), with specific constraints ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', 'scope prefix must be unique and follow the pattern x_<vendor>_<appname>'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_scoped_app' and 'update_scoped_app' by being the creation operation.

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 with the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ux_app_route' or 'create_mobile_app_config'. It implies usage for creating scoped applications but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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