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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but does not cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but does not address behavioral aspects or usage context, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'table' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter is for table inspection, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 ('structure and field information for a ServiceNow table'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'get_table_record_count', which focus on data rather than schema, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as for metadata inspection before querying or for understanding table fields. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage criteria.

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