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 a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or the format of the returned script body. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and includes a necessary prerequisite without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity is low (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but it lacks details on behavioral traits and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. It's adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps in completeness.

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' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the input values. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full script body of a script include'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_script_includes' or 'get_scoped_app', which might provide related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which provides some context for when to use it, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_script_includes' or 'get_record' for script includes. The usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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