servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get details of a Transform Map') and adds a key detail ('including its field mappings'). Zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 a simple tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output. For a read operation, this is passable but leaves gaps an agent might need.

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 'sys_id_or_name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of names, format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get details') and resource ('Transform Map'), specifying it includes 'field mappings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_transform_maps' (which lists multiple) and 'run_transform_map' (which executes). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_transform_field_maps' (if that exists) or other get_* tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_transform_maps' or 'query_records' for Transform Maps. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific map, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., needing the sys_id/name) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations).

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