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 this is a list operation with filters, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large result sets. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 HR cases') and briefly mentions key capabilities ('with optional filters'). There's zero wasted verbiage, making it highly scannable and appropriately sized for this tool type.

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, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list format, fields included), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a list tool in a complex system with many sibling alternatives, this leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 5 parameters. The description mentions optional filters (status, subject person, service) which loosely maps to 'state', 'subject_person', and 'hr_service' parameters, but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('HR cases'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filters, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_csm_cases or list_incidents), so it misses the top 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. With many sibling tools (like query_records, search_catalog, or other list_* tools), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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