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 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (the 'limit' parameter suggests pagination), default sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 return values (e.g., format, fields), error conditions, or operational constraints. For a list tool with filtering parameters, more context on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful to an 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters combine or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 risk entries'), providing specific functionality. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_grc_risk' (singular retrieval) and 'create_grc_risk' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_grc_controls' or 'list_risks' (if they existed).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools (like 'get_grc_risk' for single records or 'query_records' for complex queries) might be more suitable. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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