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 the tool 'Get details', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and constraints.

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 and key details (CVSS score and affected CIs). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return details but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a simple read operation, this is minimally viable, but it could benefit from more guidance on when to use it versus siblings.

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 parameter 'number_or_sysid' documented as 'Vulnerability number (VIT...) or sys_id'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or format specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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: 'Get details of a specific vulnerability entry including CVSS score and affected CIs'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('vulnerability entry'), and key details returned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_vulnerabilities' or 'update_vulnerability', which would require mentioning it's for a single, specific entry rather than listing or modifying.

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 does not mention when to choose this over 'list_vulnerabilities' for multiple entries, 'update_vulnerability' for modifications, or other related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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