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 mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'active' means in this context. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key feature (optional filters) 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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on behavioral context and usage guidelines. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.

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' and 'limit'). The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities but doesn't provide syntax, format examples, or details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('List') and resource ('active SLA records') with scope ('with optional filters'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sla_details' or 'list_csm_case_sla', which would require 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sla_details' or 'list_csm_case_sla', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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