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 states it's a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, if it returns a broker ID, error conditions, or rate limits. The '[Scripting]' tag adds minimal context but doesn't compensate for the lack of detailed behavioral information.

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 plus a tag—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every element ('Create...', 'to feed data...', '[Scripting]') serves a clear function. This is efficient and well-structured for its length.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., broker activation, return value), error handling, or dependencies. The '[Scripting]' tag adds slight context but doesn't fill these gaps, making it inadequate for a creation tool in a complex environment.

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 parameters (name, table, query, page) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'query' filters 'table' data) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('UI Builder data broker'), and specifies its function ('to feed data to a page'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_uib_component' or 'create_uib_page' by focusing on data brokers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_uib_data_brokers' or other data-related tools beyond the creation aspect.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page or table), when not to use it (e.g., for non-UI Builder contexts), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_uib_data_brokers' for checking existing brokers. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at a context but isn't explicit usage guidance.

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