servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the dashboard doesn't exist. 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 details of a PA dashboard') and adds specific scope ('including its widgets/tabs'). There is zero waste, 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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the schema for inputs but has incomplete guidance on behavior and results, making it functional but with clear gaps.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the parameter identifies a specific dashboard. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('PA dashboard'), specifying it includes widgets/tabs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pa_dashboards' (which lists dashboards) by focusing on retrieving details of a specific dashboard. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_dashboard' or other dashboard-related tools, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific PA dashboard, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it (e.g., for listing dashboards), or direct alternatives like 'get_dashboard' or 'list_pa_dashboards' from the sibling list. This leaves the agent to infer context.

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