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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a change request') and includes essential details like identifier formats. There is no wasted language, 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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail would improve completeness for agent invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'number_or_sysid' documented as 'Change number (CHG...) or sys_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a change request by number (CHG...) or sys_id'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('change request'), and identifier format, making the action specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'list_change_requests', which could handle similar data.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with sibling tools like 'get_record' (which might retrieve any record type) or 'list_change_requests' (which lists multiple), or specify contexts like needing a specific identifier format. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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