servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), rate limits, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in clarifying what's being listed.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance. The absence of output schema means the agent won't know what format results will be in, but the description doesn't compensate for this. It's complete enough to understand the basic operation but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'limit') are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., search syntax, default behavior when parameters are omitted). This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is complete.

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 ('OAuth application registry entries'), with additional clarification about what these entries represent ('client applications that can authenticate'). This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_credential_aliases' or other list tools that might involve authentication-related resources.

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's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to other list/search tools in the sibling set (like 'list_credential_aliases' or 'search_system_properties'). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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