servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid sys_id), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 specific UI Builder page') and adds specifics ('including layout and child elements') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, 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 complexity (retrieving structured page details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include beyond layout and child elements, how data is returned, or potential limitations. For a tool that likely returns nested data (layout/elements), more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 'sys_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the sys_id identifies a 'specific UI Builder page.' Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('UI Builder page'), specifying what details are retrieved ('layout and child elements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_uib_pages' (which lists pages) by focusing on retrieving details of a specific page. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*' tools that might retrieve different aspects of UI Builder pages.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid sys_id), compare it to sibling tools like 'list_uib_pages' (for listing) or 'get_uib_component' (for components), or specify use cases (e.g., for editing or debugging). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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