servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), sorting defaults, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states what the tool does. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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?

For a list operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (structure, fields), doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, and provides no context about the notification system. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand what to expect.

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, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify how multiple filters combine. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('email notification definitions') with specific type information ('sysevent_email_action'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_notification' or 'list_notification_subscriptions', which prevents a perfect 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. There are multiple sibling tools related to notifications (get_notification, list_notification_subscriptions, create_notification, update_notification), but no indication of how this list operation differs from individual get operations or other list variants.

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