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 states 'Create' and '[Write]', implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, response format, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 an additional tag—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (creation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'configurable agent workspace' entails, the implications of creation, or what is returned. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to guide 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 75% (3 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for 'icon' or constraints for 'table'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high but description adds no extra value.

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 configurable agent workspace'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspace' or 'list_workspaces' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'create_dashboard', 'create_portal'), which prevents a perfect score.

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, prerequisites, or constraints. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'configure_workspace_list', 'get_workspace'), there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus configuration or retrieval. The '[Write]' tag hints at mutation but doesn't offer usage context.

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