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 the tool uses 'Now Assist' and references a release, implying AI-based processing, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, if it modifies data, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Generate an AI summary of any record') and includes relevant context ('using Now Assist') and versioning ('latest release: sn_assist/skill/summarize'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope and technology.

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 complexity of an AI-based summary tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary contains, how it's generated, potential limitations, or the format of the output. While the schema covers inputs, the lack of behavioral and output details makes it inadequate for confident tool invocation in varied contexts.

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 'table' and 'sys_id' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid tables or sys_id formats. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Generate an AI summary of any record using Now Assist'. It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('summary'), and technology ('Now Assist'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also generate summaries or use AI, though none are immediately apparent in the sibling list.

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. It mentions 'latest release: sn_assist/skill/summarize', which hints at versioning but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without annotations or context, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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