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 a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and prerequisite without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the prerequisite into a second sentence for clarity).

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 complexity (a list operation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but omits details on behavior, output format, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its full context.

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 both parameters ('state' and 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('update sets (changesets)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_update_sets' or 'get_changeset' that appear in the sibling list, 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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_update_sets' or 'get_changeset' from the sibling list, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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