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 lists configurations but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not described), or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all Service Portal configurations') and adds necessary scope ('available in the instance'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, output format) and usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 configurations'), specifying scope ('all...available in the instance'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_portal' (singular) and 'list_portal_pages' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it lists all portals, there's no mention of when to use it over 'get_portal' (for a specific portal) or other search/list tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit context.

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