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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires special permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or what happens when no matches are found. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing operation and gets straight to the point with zero wasted language.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or authentication requirements. While concise, it leaves too many contextual gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional documentation or trial-and-error.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain how the 'query' parameter works with the 'type' filter, or provide examples of valid 'type' values beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connection and credential aliases used by integrations'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_oauth_applications' or 'list_system_properties' that also list different types of configuration items, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific domain.

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 many sibling 'list_' tools available (e.g., 'list_oauth_applications', 'list_system_properties'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other listing operations in the system.

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