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. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 states the core purpose. The parenthetical note about 'latest release: streaming VA API' is somewhat vague but doesn't significantly detract from conciseness. It's front-loaded with the main action.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, output format) that would help an agent use it effectively, especially compared to sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (active, category, limit). The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'active' means in context or typical category values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Virtual Agent topics'), and specifies the scope ('available in the instance'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_va_topics_full' or 'get_va_topic', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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_va_topics_full' or 'get_va_topic', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. The mention of 'latest release: streaming VA API' is vague and doesn't clarify applicability.

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