servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a listing operation without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available in the instance' entails. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what's listed and the scope.

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 moderate complexity (listing with filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output details that would help an agent use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Performance Analytics indicators/KPIs') with the scope ('available in the instance'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_pa_indicator' or 'list_pa_dashboards', which would require explicit comparison for 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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.