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 listing jobs and schedules but omits critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), or what the output format looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 for a simple listing tool and front-loads 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. mutating), authentication needs, error handling, or return format. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide an agent 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters (e.g., what 'query' filters on, how 'active' interacts with schedules). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('scheduled jobs and their run schedules'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_scheduled_job' (singular retrieval) or 'list_job_run_history' (execution history rather than schedules), which prevents 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. With many sibling tools present (e.g., 'get_scheduled_job', 'list_job_run_history', 'trigger_scheduled_job'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this listing operation.

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