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 states it's a listing operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, default ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no apps match the query. For a listing 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('Next Experience (UI Builder) applications'). Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list structure, fields included), any constraints or prerequisites, or how it differs from similar listing tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining how the query works or typical use cases for the limit. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Next Experience (UI Builder) applications'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scoped_apps' or 'list_uib_pages', which appear to be related but distinct listing operations.

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. With many sibling tools that list different resources (e.g., 'list_scoped_apps', 'list_uib_pages'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader context or what makes it unique.

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