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 the tool retrieves details but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the flow doesn't exist, or any rate limits. For a tool with no 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 Flow Designer flow') and adds specifics ('including its actions and trigger') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes value, making it appropriately 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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral traits, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, but this is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 parameter 'name_or_sysid' documented as 'Flow name or sys_id'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or how to handle ambiguous names. 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a Flow Designer flow'), including what details are retrieved ('including its actions and trigger'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_flows' or 'get_flow_execution', which might provide different scopes of flow information.

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, such as needing a flow name or sys_id, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_flows' for browsing flows or 'get_flow_execution' for runtime details. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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