servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists available instances without disclosing behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'available in the environment' means operationally. It's a read operation but lacks details about response format or potential limitations.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to the purpose. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality 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?

For a read-only listing tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it does but lacks context about the listing behavior, result format, or how it fits with sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (query searches by name/category, category filters, limit sets max records). 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 action (list) and resource (reusable Flow Designer action instances) with scope (available in the environment). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_flows or list_flow_executions, but the specific resource type (action instances) provides reasonable distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flows or search-based tools. The description mentions what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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