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. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what format the data is returned in. For a listing 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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 a listing operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each data source definition, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more 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 the schema already documents all three parameters (query, type, limit) with their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score 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 ('Import Set data source definitions'), specifying the types (file/JDBC/REST loaders). It distinguishes itself from other list_* tools by focusing on data source definitions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like list_import_sets or list_transform_maps.

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 tools present (including list_import_sets and list_transform_maps), there's no indication of when this specific listing operation is appropriate versus other listing tools in the system.

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