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. It mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., pagination, format). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 UI Actions') and includes essential context (resource details and prerequisite). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a list operation with filtering parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, it should do more to be complete.

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 (table, type, active, limit) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('UI Actions'), specifying they include buttons, context menus, and related links for a table. It distinguishes from other list tools by focusing on UI actions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_ui_policies' or 'list_uib_components' among siblings.

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 some context by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_ui_action' for a single action or other list tools for different resources), leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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