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. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full details' includes, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 and includes essential context without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying critical information.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'full details and script body'. It mentions the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement but lacks information on return format, error handling, or what constitutes 'full details'. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 'System ID of the client script'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the sys_id. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get full details and script body') and resource ('client script'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'list_client_scripts' or 'get_script_include', 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 explicit context for when to use it ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful for preconditions. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'list_client_scripts' for browsing or exclusions, but the context guidance is clear and actionable.

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