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 'optional filters' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it returns all fields or a subset, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a list tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, 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 core purpose upfront. There's zero wasted language - every word contributes to understanding what the tool does. It's appropriately sized for a list operation with filters.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'CSM cases' are (Customer Success Management cases), what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from just the parameter schema without additional context about the return format or system behavior.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters with their types and descriptions. The description mentions 'optional filters (account, contact, state, priority)' which maps to 4 of the 6 parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 ('CSM cases') with scope ('with optional filters'). It distinguishes from other list tools by specifying the resource type (CSM cases), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_csm_accounts' or 'list_csm_contacts' beyond the resource name.

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. There are many other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_csm_accounts', 'list_hr_cases', 'query_records'), but no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives or when filtering is needed versus other approaches.

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