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 data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or details the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 lists key metrics without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with every phrase contributing to understanding what the tool does.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, data freshness) and usage context, which are important for a tool with no structured annotations to guide the agent.

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 'days' documented as 'Look-back period in days (default 30)'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('security posture dashboard'), and lists the key metrics returned (open incidents by severity, vulnerability counts, mean time to resolve). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on security metrics rather than other domains like CMDB, HR, or development.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., other dashboard tools like 'cmdb_health_dashboard' or 'get_pa_dashboard'), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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