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. It states the tool retrieves an XML payload, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's rate-limited, what the output format entails beyond 'XML', or if it's a synchronous/asynchronous call. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at automation but lacks detail, making it insufficient for a mutation-free 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The '[Scripting]' tag adds context efficiently. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the migration context more seamlessly, but overall, it avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (involves XML export for migration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., structure of the XML), potential errors, or usage constraints. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for an export operation is underspecified, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, with the 'sys_id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the format of sys_id, provide examples, or clarify the Update Set context. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 ('Get') and resource ('XML export payload for an Update Set'), and includes the context of migration. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_update_sets' (which lists) and 'preview_update_set' (which previews), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential export-related tools, keeping it from 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 minimal usage guidance—it mentions the tool is for migration and includes a '[Scripting]' tag, implying it's for automated or scripted contexts. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., needing an Update Set sys_id), or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'preview_update_set' for non-export purposes). This leaves gaps for an agent to decide appropriately.

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