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. It states this is a write operation ('[Write]'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the page is immediately published, what happens on duplicate paths, or error conditions. For a creation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a tag—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and indicates it's a write operation, but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. For a tool that creates a resource with route implications, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'route registration' relates to the 'path' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('new UI Builder page'), specifying it includes 'route registration'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_uib_component' or 'create_portal_page' by focusing on UI Builder pages specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_ux_app_route' which might be related.

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 for creating various resources (e.g., 'create_portal_page', 'create_ux_app_route'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The '[Write]' tag implies it's a write operation but doesn't specify when this is needed.

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