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's a list operation with filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' param but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it returns all assets or a subset. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 core purpose ('List IT assets') and briefly mentions key filtering options. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering interacts. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more contextual information 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?

The description mentions filtering by state, class, or assigned user, which maps to 3 of the 6 parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('IT assets'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_asset_contracts' or 'list_workspaces' beyond the IT asset domain, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions optional filtering by state, class, or assigned user, which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_records' or 'search_cmdb_ci'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

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