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. It mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement) which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), or what happens if the prerequisite isn't met.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key prerequisite. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 operation with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a prerequisite. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description could add more operational 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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('client scripts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_client_script' (singular) or other list tools, which would require explicit comparison for 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 usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_client_script' (singular retrieval) or other filtering methods, nor does it mention any exclusions or typical scenarios.

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