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. It mentions 'recent' and 'success/failure log', which hints at temporal scope and status inclusion, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination, default sorting, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'recent' means. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes parenthetical clarification. Every element earns its place, 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 the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filters), 100% schema coverage for inputs, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, pagination) that would be helpful for an agent. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how it behaves.

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 the three parameters (job_sys_id, status, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose: 'List recent run history for scheduled jobs (success/failure log)'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('run history for scheduled jobs'), and scope ('recent'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_scheduled_job' or 'list_scheduled_jobs' beyond mentioning the history aspect.

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 prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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