servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 states the core action and the primary constraint. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, and the most important information (the creation action) is front-loaded.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a script include is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or return values. The single constraint about SCRIPTING_ENABLED is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context about this mutating operation's behavior and outcomes.

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 with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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') and resource ('new script include'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_script_include' or 'get_script_include', but the verb 'Create' sufficiently indicates this is a creation operation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 one explicit usage constraint ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_client_script' or 'create_business_rule' from the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the scripting flag.

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