servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires permissions, how results are ordered, if it's paginated, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose ('List deployment history') and adds clarifying detail. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, ordering, permissions, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns complex historical data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies a time-based scope ('over time') but doesn't clarify the 'days' parameter's default or the 'limit' parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters.

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 ('deployment history'), specifying it includes 'committed update sets and app installs over time'. This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_deployments or list_update_sets by focusing on historical changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the specific scope mentioned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the scope but doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other tools like get_deployment or track_deployment. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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