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 states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific HR permissions, if it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the user doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 the HR profile for a user') and adds clarifying scope in parentheses. There's zero wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, permissions, or behavioral details. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention safety or access considerations, but it meets the bare minimum for understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'user_identifier' well-documented in the schema as 'Username, email, or sys_id of the user'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('HR profile for a user'), specifying the scope as 'employment details, department, manager'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user' or 'get_hr_case' by focusing on HR-specific profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_hr_profile' (a sibling tool) in the description text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'get_user' for basic user info or 'update_hr_profile' for modifications. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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