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 'verify they are healthy', which hints at health-checking behavior, but doesn't disclose what 'healthy' means, how verification is performed, whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 upfront. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the listing and verification aspects for clarity.

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 what 'healthy' entails, the format of returned data, pagination, error conditions, or how verification integrates with listing. For a tool that implies health-checking behavior, this lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'active_only' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MID servers'), and adds a secondary function ('verify they are healthy'). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on MID servers specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'list_instances' or 'list_servers' that might exist in the sibling list.

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 compare it to other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_instances', 'list_workspaces'). The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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