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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the 'full details' include, whether it returns all fields or a subset, or any rate limiting considerations. For a security-related 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate for a security incident retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, whether sensitive fields are returned, what authentication is required, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool that likely returns complex security data, more context is needed.

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 'number_or_sysid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'number or sys_id' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 security incident by number or sys_id'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('security incident'), and key identifier ('number or sys_id'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_incident' or 'list_security_incidents', which would be needed for a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including 'get_incident', 'list_security_incidents', and 'create_security_incident', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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