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 mentions 'audit history' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination details, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving audit history (which may involve permissions, data formats, and limitations), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('name' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., property name format). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 ('audit history of changes to a system property'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_system_properties' or 'get_system_property', which might retrieve current property values rather than historical changes.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific property name), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_audit_results' or 'get_system_property' for different use cases.

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