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 'returns current value, target, trend direction' which describes output content, but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the purpose and outputs without any wasted words. Every element ('Get current scorecard data for a PA indicator — returns current value, target, trend direction') serves a clear informational purpose. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return values but lacks important context about behavioral traits, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'PA indicator' means or provide examples of indicator_sys_id values). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither adds value nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 current scorecard data for a PA indicator' with specific outputs ('returns current value, target, trend direction'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pa_dashboard' or 'get_pa_indicator' by focusing on scorecard data rather than dashboard metadata or indicator definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_pa_time_series' which might provide historical data versus current data.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current scorecard data' and listing return values, suggesting it's for retrieving performance metrics. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pa_dashboard' or 'get_pa_time_series', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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