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 the tool's dual functionality (account-specific listing vs global search) but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a list/search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and two usage modes without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return format, pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a list/search tool that could return varying amounts of data, more contextual information is needed for effective agent use.

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 three parameters with their purposes. The description adds minimal value by implying the relationship between 'account_sysid' and 'query' parameters (mutually exclusive modes) but doesn't provide syntax examples, format details, or interaction rules beyond what the schema states.

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 ('contacts'), specifying two modes: listing for an account or searching across all contacts. It distinguishes itself from other contact-related tools like 'get_csm_contact' (singular) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader search tools like 'query_records' or 'natural_language_search'.

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 implies usage contexts ('for an account' vs 'search across all contacts') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'query_records' or 'search_cmdb_ci'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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