servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists components but does not describe key traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, default sorting, error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a system's UI components.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted information.

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 (listing system components), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'macroponents' are, the format of returned data, potential limitations, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'limit' and 'scope' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by scope, which is already covered. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but doesn't detract.

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 Builder components (macroponents) in the instance'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_uib_pages' or 'list_uib_data_brokers', which list related but different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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, such as other list tools for UI Builder resources or general search tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of function without usage direction.

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