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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if there are rate limits, what format the activity log is returned in, or if it includes pagination. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for safe and effective use.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves potentially complex activity data. It doesn't explain the structure or content of the returned activity log, any limitations (e.g., date ranges, entry types), or error conditions. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 'hr_case_sysid' clearly documented as the 'sys_id of the HR case'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find this sys_id or examples of valid values, but the schema alone is sufficient for basic understanding.

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') and the target resource ('full activity log and journal entries for an HR case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hr_case' or 'get_hr_lifecycle_events', but the specificity about retrieving activity logs and journal entries provides good clarity.

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 like 'get_hr_case' or 'get_hr_lifecycle_events'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing HR case, or contextual constraints like permissions required to access activity logs.

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