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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., list of instance names/URLs), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. There's zero waste or 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 the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured list of instances with details), which is crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return format, but it doesn't.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the parameter space.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all configured ServiceNow instances'), specifying the scope ('multi-instance / multi-customer support'). It distinguishes from other list tools by focusing on instances rather than other resources like users or workspaces. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_current_instance' or 'switch_instance' which are related sibling tools.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for discovering available instances before switching) or when not to use it (e.g., if you already know the instance). With many sibling tools including instance-related ones like 'get_current_instance' and 'switch_instance', this lack of guidance is a significant gap.

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