servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' relationships, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., list, tree), if there are rate limits, or if it handles errors (e.g., invalid CI IDs). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured data, error messages), behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool that likely returns relationship data, more context is needed to 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'ci_sys_id' documented as 'System ID of the CI'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples of valid IDs or constraints. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show parent and child relationships for a CI'. It specifies the verb ('Show') and resource ('parent and child relationships'), and identifies the target ('a CI'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_cmdb_ci' or 'search_cmdb_ci' that might also retrieve CI information but with different scopes.

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 (e.g., needing a valid CI system ID), exclusions (e.g., what types of CIs are supported), or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_cmdb_ci' (which might retrieve CI details without relationships) or 'create_ci_relationship' (which creates relationships).

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