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 mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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: 'List system properties with optional filtering'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key feature (filtering) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or sorting. For a list tool with filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (query, category, type, limit) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'List system properties with optional filtering'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('system properties'), and scope ('with optional filtering'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_system_properties' or 'get_system_property', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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. There are sibling tools like 'search_system_properties' and 'get_system_property', but the description doesn't mention them or explain when this listing tool is preferable. Without any usage context, it scores low.

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