servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scripting requirement but doesn't describe what 'full details' includes, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the sys_id doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core functionality and main requirement without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, it lacks details about return format, error conditions, and behavioral aspects that would be helpful for an agent, especially since there's no output schema to document the response structure.

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 single parameter 'sys_id' clearly documented as 'UI Action sys_id'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it 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 action ('Get full details and script') and resource ('UI Action'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'list_ui_actions' or 'get_ui_policy' beyond mentioning the script retrieval aspect.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when this tool is applicable. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_ui_actions' or other get_* tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond the scripting requirement.

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