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 action ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the property doesn't exist, or details about the returned metadata. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system properties.

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 without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' includes, potential error conditions, or behavioral traits like permissions or idempotency. For a tool that retrieves system configuration data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 'name' documented as 'Property name (e.g., "glide.smtp.host")'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only restates that it retrieves by 'name' without providing additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what's in the 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 ('ServiceNow system property value and metadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_system_properties' or 'search_system_properties', which would require a more detailed comparison of scope.

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 like 'list_system_properties' or 'bulk_get_properties'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the exact property name, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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