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 mentions 'list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, default sorting, whether it returns all fields or a subset, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about return format (e.g., list of objects with fields), pagination, or how it differs from sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as search syntax examples or limit constraints. 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 ('outbound REST Message configurations'), specifying they are integrations with external APIs. It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rest_message' or 'list_rest_message_functions'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rest_message' (which likely retrieves a single configuration) or 'list_rest_message_functions' (which likely lists functions within a message). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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