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 mentions 'AI-drafted' work notes, hinting at generative AI behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this creates or modifies records, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with potential write operations and no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.

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 without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves AI generation (a complex operation), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, output details, or error conditions. For a tool with potential side effects and rich context needs, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 fully documents parameters (table, sys_id, context). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying parameters relate to 'a record' and 'current context.' This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 AI-drafted work notes for a record based on its current context.' It specifies the action (generate), the output (AI-drafted work notes), and the target (a record). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_work_note' or 'generate_summary,' which would require a 5.

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 guidance: it implies usage when AI-drafted notes are needed for a record's context. It lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'add_work_note' for manual notes or 'generate_summary' for summaries). This leaves the agent with little direction on optimal tool selection.

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