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 discloses a behavioral trait (the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement), which is useful context beyond the basic operation. However, it lacks details on other behaviors such as pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter but not explained), error handling, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 key prerequisite. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it into two sentences for better readability (e.g., separating the prerequisite).

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 moderate complexity (a list operation with filtering parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like default behaviors (e.g., what happens if 'limit' is omitted). For a tool with no structured output information, more context would be beneficial.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples for the parameters (table, active, limit) beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 ('UI Policies for a table'), with specific details about what UI policies entail ('field visibility, mandatory, read-only rules'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_ui_policy' or 'list_uib_pages', which might have overlapping or related functionality.

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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which implies when this tool might fail or be unavailable. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ui_policy' (which might retrieve a single policy) or other list tools, nor does it specify exclusions or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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