servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Delete') and includes '[Write]' as a hint, but fails to specify critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., breaking references). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive tool.

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 with just one sentence and a brief annotation-like hint ('[Write]'), front-loading the core action without any wasted words. Every element serves a clear purpose.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., permanence, permissions, error conditions) and does not explain what happens upon success or failure, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single required parameter 'sys_id'. The description does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3. However, it earns a 4 because the tool has only one parameter, making the schema's documentation sufficient without additional description.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a UI Builder page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_uib_page', 'update_uib_page', and 'get_uib_page'. It precisely identifies the tool's function without redundancy.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_uib_page' for modifications or 'get_uib_page' for viewing). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid sys_id, or exclusions, like when deletion is irreversible.

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