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 states it's a listing tool with filters, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), whether it returns partial or full data, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 Flow Designer flows') and immediately specifies optional filters. There is zero wasted verbiage, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of flow objects with fields), behavioral aspects like pagination or sorting, or error handling. For a listing tool with four parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'name, category, or active status', which aligns with parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'query' covers name/description, 'active' and 'category' are explicit). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Flow Designer flows'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flow' or 'list_flow_executions' that might also retrieve flow-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 mentions optional filters (name, category, active status), which implies usage for filtered listing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_flow' for single flows or 'list_flow_executions' for execution data. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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