servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), describe pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, explain default sorting, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a list operation.

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 ('List agile stories') and immediately adds qualifying information about filtering options. There's zero wasted language, and every word serves to clarify the tool's function.

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 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important contextual information about behavioral traits, result format, or error conditions. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what the tool returns, but it doesn't.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional sprint or state filter,' which merely restates what the schema indicates. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples beyond the schema.

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 ('agile stories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other list tools by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'query_records' or 'find_artifact' that might also retrieve stories.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'optional sprint or state filter,' suggesting this tool is for filtered listing rather than unfiltered retrieval. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'query_records' or 'get_story' (if it existed), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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