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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent executions' and status filtering, but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit'), default sorting, whether it's read-only (implied by 'List'), error handling, or authentication needs. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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: 'List recent executions of a flow with status (completed, error, running)'. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral nuances. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum for a list operation.

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 (flow_sys_id, status, limit) with their types and descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'status (completed, error, running)', which partially overlaps with the schema's 'Filter by status: running, complete, error, cancelled'. It doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'List recent executions of a flow with status (completed, error, running)'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('executions of a flow'), and scope ('recent'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flow_execution' (singular) or 'list_flows', missing full sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a flow_sys_id), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_flow_execution' for single executions or 'list_flows' for listing flows themselves. Usage is implied through the parameter description but not explicitly stated.

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