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 discloses a behavioral trait: the requirement 'SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true,' which is crucial for authentication or environment setup. However, it does not mention other aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., what 'full details' includes). This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding for a read operation.

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 and script body of a business rule') and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), the description is moderately complete. It lacks an output schema, so the agent must infer the return format from the description's mention of 'full details and script body.' With no annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite but could benefit from more behavioral context or output details to be fully comprehensive.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or examples for 'sys_id'). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description meets this without compensating further.

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 and script body of a business rule.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('business rule'), and scope ('full details and script body'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'list_business_rules,' which could retrieve similar data, so it falls short of 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 includes a prerequisite: 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true,' which provides some context for when to use it. However, it does not offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'get_record' for general record retrieval or 'list_business_rules' for listing without details), nor does it specify exclusions or complementary tools. The usage is implied but not fully articulated.

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