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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get full details' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication requirements, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar retrieval tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'number (PRB...)' which provides context about the expected format, but doesn't go beyond what's in the schema's parameter description. With high 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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a problem by number (PRB...) or sys_id'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('problem'), and identifier format, making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'get_incident', which could also retrieve details of different record types.

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. With many sibling 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_record', 'get_incident', 'get_change_request'), there's no indication whether this is the preferred method for retrieving problem records or when other tools might be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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