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. It mentions a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as what happens on creation (e.g., whether it's immediately visible, if it requires additional activation, or potential side effects like affecting form performance). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core action ('Create a new UI Action') and includes a crucial prerequisite without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 (9 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual elements such as what the tool returns upon creation, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. The prerequisite is helpful, but more is needed to fully guide an AI agent in using this tool effectively.

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, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'type' and 'form_button/list_button'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 UI Action') and the resource ('button or link on a form'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'update_ui_action' or 'get_ui_action' that exist in the sibling list, which prevents a perfect score.

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 an implied usage context with the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', which is helpful for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_ui_action' or 'create_ui_policy', and doesn't mention any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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