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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase ('List audit results and findings'), front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 list operation with filtering parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'audit results and findings' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (state, severity, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'List audit results and findings' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('audit results and findings'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_security_incidents' or 'list_compliance_policies', leaving the scope ambiguous regarding what type of audit results are included.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools available (e.g., 'list_security_incidents', 'list_vulnerabilities'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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