servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Monitor' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is real-time monitoring, historical listing, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns live vs. cached data, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with specific operational details. The brevity is commendable but borders on under-specification.

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, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns event data. The description doesn't explain what 'events' are in this context, what fields they contain, whether results are paginated, or how 'monitor' differs from simple listing. For a tool with 2 parameters and complex sibling environment, more context is needed.

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 (query filter and limit with default). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'Monitor critical infrastructure events' states a general purpose but is vague. It doesn't specify what 'monitor' means operationally (e.g., list, retrieve, stream) or what 'critical infrastructure events' refers to in this system. While it distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like 'create_incident', it doesn't clearly differentiate from similar list/query tools in the sibling set.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be better suited. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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