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 details, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the indicator is not found (e.g., error handling). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There is no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates the core functionality in a minimal format.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. While it suffices for a basic read operation, it does not provide enough context for optimal agent use, especially without annotations to cover safety or performance aspects.

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, clearly documenting the single parameter 'sys_id_or_name' as 'Indicator sys_id or name.' The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples of valid formats or how to distinguish between ID and name. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter details without extra value from the description.

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: 'Get details of a specific Performance Analytics indicator including its formula.' It specifies the verb ('Get details'), resource ('Performance Analytics indicator'), and includes the formula as a key detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pa_indicators' or 'get_performance_analytics', which could cause confusion about when to use this versus a list or general query tool.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific indicator ID or name, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'list_pa_indicators' for listing indicators or 'get_performance_analytics' for broader analytics data. This lack of context could lead to misuse in scenarios where a list or different query might be more appropriate.

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