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. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the widget doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 full source code') and specifies the resource and scope without any wasted words. Every element earns its place by clarifying what 'full source code' entails.

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 (retrieving source code), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits critical context like return format (e.g., structured object vs. raw text), error handling, or authentication needs. The schema covers the parameter, but overall completeness is limited.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id_or_sysid'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format differences between 'id' and 'sysid' or provide examples beyond the schema's example). 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 specific action ('Get full source code') and resource ('Service Portal widget'), with precise scope details ('HTML, CSS, client/server scripts'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_portal_widgets' (which would list widgets) and 'create_portal_widget' (which creates them).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing widget identifiers), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'get_portal_page' or 'get_portal_theme'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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