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. While it indicates this is a write operation (via the bolded '[Write]'), it doesn't describe what 'create a solution package' actually does behaviorally - whether this generates a downloadable file, creates a distributable artifact in the system, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens if the same package name already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence plus a write indicator, making it appropriately concise. The core purpose is stated upfront, and the '[Write]' annotation (though not a formal annotation) is efficiently appended. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the behavioral context from the purpose statement.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'solution package' is in this context, what format it creates, where it's stored, how to access it after creation, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity implied by packaging update sets for distribution and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information about the operation's results and implications.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it mentions 'selected update sets' which maps to the 'update_sets' parameter already documented in the schema, but doesn't explain what a 'solution package' consists of, how the name/description are used, or provide any additional context about parameter usage. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource 'solution package' with the purpose 'for distribution' from 'selected update sets'. It distinguishes this from other create_* tools by specifying the specific resource type (solution package) and source (update sets). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'export_update_set' or 'publish_changeset' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'export_update_set', 'publish_changeset', 'commit_changeset', and 'create_update_set', there's no indication of when this specific packaging operation is appropriate versus those other distribution or update-related operations. The description lacks any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to similar tools.

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