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 key behavioral trait—the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement—which is valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't describe other aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions, leaving 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 details of an update set') and includes essential context ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') without any wasted words. Every part 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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by covering the purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools, which would be needed for full contextual understanding in this environment.

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_or_name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('update set'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_changesets' or 'get_current_update_set', which would require explicit differentiation to earn 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 guidance by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_changesets' (for listing) or 'get_current_update_set' (for a specific default), leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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