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 indicates this is a write operation ('[Write]'), which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether duplicate routes are allowed, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. 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 extremely concise—a single sentence plus a write indicator. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element (registration action, resource, write hint) earns its place efficiently.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe/effective use is lacking.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format rules, what a 'title' is used for, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Register') and resource ('new route (URL path) in a UX app'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_ux_experience' or 'create_uib_page' by focusing specifically on route registration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other route-related tools that might exist (though none are listed in siblings).

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 UX app or UIB page), nor does it suggest when not to use it or what other tools might be related. The sibling list includes many creation tools, but no explicit comparison is made.

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