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 states this is a list operation with optional filtering, but doesn't describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit'), default sorting, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 states the core purpose and key optional features. It's front-loaded with the main action ('List GRC controls') and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (listing with filters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error handling. With better annotations or an output schema, this would be more complete.

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 three parameters (risk_sysid, state, limit). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filter by risk or policy', which loosely maps to risk_sysid and state, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('GRC controls'), making the purpose explicit. It also mentions optional filtering by risk or policy, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings (like list_grc_risks or list_compliance_policies), which would be needed for 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate, what happens without filters, or how this differs from other listing tools (e.g., query_records). Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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