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 it's a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the service isn't found. For a tool with zero 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 without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and included details.

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, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidelines, which are important even for simple tools. The description covers the basic purpose but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 'sys_id_or_name' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the 'name' format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get details') and resource ('HR service'), specifying what details are included ('tasks and SLAs'). It distinguishes from general 'get' tools by focusing on HR services, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar HR-related sibling tools like 'get_hr_case' or 'list_hr_services'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_hr_services' for browsing or 'get_hr_case' for case-specific details. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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