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' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the 'full details' include, whether there are rate limits, or if the operation has side effects. For a tool with zero 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 communicates the essential information without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what input it accepts. However, without annotations and with many potential sibling alternatives, it lacks context about permissions, return format, error conditions, and differentiation from similar tools. The description meets basic requirements but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' well-documented in the schema as accepting 'App sys_id or scope name'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating the same information. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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 ('full details of a scoped application'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the input type ('sys_id or scope name'), which helps distinguish it from generic 'get' tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scoped_apps' or 'get_record', which could retrieve similar data through different mechanisms.

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 tools like 'list_scoped_apps', 'get_record', and 'query_records' that could potentially retrieve application data, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, access requirements, or typical use cases.

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