servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what 'firing an event' actually does behaviorally - whether it triggers workflows, sends notifications, creates audit trails, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that communicates the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it front-loaded and efficient for agent comprehension.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a permission requirement but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what happens after firing the event, what the response looks like, or potential side effects. While concise, it's incomplete for understanding the full behavioral implications of using this tool.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any extra context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 action ('Fire a custom ServiceNow event') and the target ('for a specific record'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'register_event' or 'list_active_events' beyond mentioning the WRITE_ENABLED requirement.

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 some usage context with the 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' prerequisite, which implies this is a write operation requiring specific permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_event' (which appears in the sibling list) or provide clear exclusion criteria.

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