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 a summary but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, how data is sourced (e.g., real-time vs. cached), or any rate limits. 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 ('Get license compliance summary') and adds specific detail ('purchased vs. installed vs. in use counts') without any redundant or verbose language. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, return format, or error handling. It is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves gaps in completeness, especially for an agent needing to understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 optional parameter 'license_sys_id' documented as 'Software license sys_id (optional — omit for all)'. The description implies filtering capability by mentioning 'purchased vs. installed vs. in use counts' but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('license compliance summary'), and specifies the metrics returned ('purchased vs. installed vs. in use counts'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_license_optimization' or 'list_software_licenses' that might exist in the context, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other license-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_license_optimization', 'list_software_licenses'). It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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