servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: conditional creation when no active update set exists. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if multiple active update sets exist. The '[Scripting]' tag adds some context but lacks detail.

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 two clauses that directly state the tool's function and conditional behavior. The '[Scripting]' tag is efficiently placed. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or system context. Given the complexity of update set management and the absence of structured behavioral hints, more completeness 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% with one optional parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is appropriately met. The description contextually supports the parameter's purpose.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('ensure') and resource ('active Update Set'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning automatic creation when none exists. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'create_update_set' or 'get_current_update_set' by combining checking and conditional creation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('ensure an active Update Set exists') and implies usage when preparing for changes that require an update set. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the context suggests it's for scripting workflows.

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