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. It states it's a list operation with search, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like pagination (only 'limit' parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 ('List Service Portal widgets') and adds key functionality ('with optional search by name or category'). There's zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 (list operation with two optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and search capability but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or usage context. It meets the bare minimum for a simple read tool but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data.

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 both parameters ('query' for search, 'limit' for max records). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional search by name or category', which aligns with the schema's 'query' description but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 action ('List') and resource ('Service Portal widgets') with additional scope ('with optional search by name or category'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_portal_widget' (singular retrieval) and 'list_portal_pages' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated.

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 mentions optional search functionality but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_catalog' or 'query_records' for broader searches, or 'get_portal_widget' for specific widget retrieval. There's no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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