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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 ('Get full details of an ACL rule...') and includes essential context ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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 the complexity of retrieving ACL details (which may involve permissions and scripting), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations to cover behavioral aspects, and no output schema to explain return values. The description only partially compensates by mentioning a prerequisite, but it lacks details on what 'full details' includes, error handling, or usage relative to siblings. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data about ACL rules.

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 single parameter 'sys_id' documented as 'ACL sys_id'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema description coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Get full details of an ACL rule including its script and role requirements'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('ACL rule'), and scope of details ('full details... including its script and role requirements'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_acls' or 'update_acl', which would be needed for 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 some usage context with 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_acls' for listing ACLs or 'get_record' for generic record retrieval, nor does it specify exclusion scenarios. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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