servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the component is immediately available, potential side effects, or error conditions. The '[Scripting]' hint adds minimal context about likely usage environment.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with a brief bracketed hint. Every word serves a purpose: 'Create' (action), 'custom UI Builder component (macroponent)' (resource), and '[Scripting]' (context hint). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what happens after creation (e.g., component ID returned, where it appears), error handling, or dependencies. The '[Scripting]' hint is vague and doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does substantial documentation work. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how name differs from label) or provide examples of valid values.

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 ('custom UI Builder component (macroponent)'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_uib_page' or 'update_uib_component', but the specificity of 'UI Builder component (macroponent)' provides adequate distinction.

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 like 'create_uib_page', 'create_uib_data_broker', or 'update_uib_component'. The bracketed '[Scripting]' hint might imply a technical context, but it's not explicit about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for creating a component.

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