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. While it includes '[Write]' to indicate a mutation operation, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies CMDB data.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with a bracketed annotation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, 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 complexity of importing data into a CMDB (a write operation with potential side effects), the description is insufficient. No annotations exist, there's no output schema, and it lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or usage context. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('table' and 'data'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid tables or data formats, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Import') and resource ('CI data into CMDB via import set'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_import_set_row' or 'import_properties', which could handle similar data operations.

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. With many sibling tools like 'create_import_set_row' and 'import_properties' that might handle data imports, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific import method.

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