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 states the tool retrieves 'full details', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' includes (e.g., fields, format). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully complete for effective agent use.

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, with the parameter 'sys_id_or_name' documented as 'Job sys_id or exact name'. The description adds minimal value by restating this parameter info ('by sys_id or name') without providing additional context like examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does most of the work.

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 scheduled job by sys_id or name'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('scheduled job'), and method ('by sys_id or name'), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scheduled_jobs' or 'get_job_run_history', which slightly limits its clarity.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_scheduled_jobs' for listing jobs or 'trigger_scheduled_job' for execution, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative guidance reduces its effectiveness in helping an agent choose correctly.

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