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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires PA plugin') and a technical endpoint reference, but doesn't describe key behaviors such as what the tool returns (e.g., data format, structure), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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. However, the inclusion of a technical endpoint reference ('latest release: /api/now/pa/widget/{sys_id}') adds minor clutter without clear value in the context of tool invocation, slightly reducing conciseness.

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, no output schema, and moderate complexity (retrieving analytics data with parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from sibling PA tools. The prerequisite and endpoint reference don't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (widget_sys_id and time_range) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it references 'widget_sys_id' in the endpoint example but doesn't explain its role or the time_range usage further. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Performance Analytics widget data'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pa_dashboard' or 'get_pa_indicator', which appear to be related Performance Analytics tools, so it misses full sibling 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?

The description includes a prerequisite ('requires PA plugin') and a technical reference ('latest release: /api/now/pa/widget/{sys_id}'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other PA-related get tools (e.g., get_pa_dashboard, get_pa_indicator). There's no explicit when/when-not usage context or named alternatives.

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