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 this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid sys_id. The mention of 'layout' suggests structured output, but format details are missing.

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. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It appropriately balances brevity with essential information about what details are returned.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention expected return format, authentication needs, or error handling. The mention of 'layout' hints at structure, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find sys_ids or format requirements. With complete 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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific Service Portal page'), including the scope of information returned ('including its layout'). It specifies a single page rather than listing pages, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_portal_pages' or 'get_portal'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid sys_id, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'get_portal' (for portal details) or 'list_portal_pages' (for multiple pages).

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