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 only states the action ('List') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether it returns all configurations or is paginated, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, usage context, or parameter details, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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 one parameter ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its purpose or format. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 'List mobile layout configurations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('mobile layout configurations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'mobile layout configurations' entail (e.g., UI settings, templates) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_mobile_app_configs' or 'list_mobile_applets', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., for mobile app development), or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_mobile_layout' for creation or 'list_mobile_app_configs' for related configurations. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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