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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, default sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'available' means in this context (e.g., active items only, user-visible items).

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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 simple listing tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, differentiation from similar tools, and output format expectations that would help an agent use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('category' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 available service catalog items' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('service catalog items'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_catalog' or 'get_catalog_item', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes.

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. With sibling tools like 'search_catalog' and 'get_catalog_item' available, there's no indication of when this listing approach is preferable or what distinguishes it from search functionality.

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