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 indicates a write operation ('Create') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied mutation.

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 key action. The addition of '**[Write]**' is slightly redundant but doesn't significantly detract from conciseness. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while staying focused.

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 as a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, expected return values, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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, app_sys_id, landing_page). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('UX Experience (app shell) configuration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ux_app_route' or 'create_uib_page', which also create UX-related configurations, so it misses full sibling 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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing UX app or landing page, and doesn't mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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