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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated, what format the breakdowns are returned in, or any rate limits. It mentions the purpose but lacks operational details.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 listing tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'breakdowns' are, what the return format looks like, and any usage constraints. The description meets basic requirements but leaves 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 the schema already documents both parameters ('query' for search and 'limit' for max records). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'breakdowns' are, what format the query should use, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('List') and resource ('PA breakdowns (dimensions)'), and specifies the purpose is for 'segmenting indicator data'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pa_indicators' or 'list_pa_dashboards' that might also list Performance Analytics components.

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, when this tool is appropriate versus other listing tools, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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