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 a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED) but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it's paginated (implied by 'limit' but not stated), what the output format is, or any rate limits. 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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 covers the basic action and a prerequisite but omits essential context: expected return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how results are ordered. For a list tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 already documents all three parameters (query, active, limit) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score 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 verb ('List') and resource ('script includes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_script_include' (singular retrieval) or 'list_scoped_apps' (different resource type), which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_script_include' (for single includes) or 'query_records' (for generic queries). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the guidance is incomplete.

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