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 discloses a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe other traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 purpose and includes essential context (the prerequisite). There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior (e.g., output format, pagination) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured fields. For a list tool with 4 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filtering works). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Access Control rules (ACLs)'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_acl' (singular) by indicating it lists multiple ACLs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_users'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by stating it lists ACLs and mentions a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_acl' for a single ACL), so it scores a 4.

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