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 the tool lists pages but doesn't mention if it's read-only, safe, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a list operation 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (a list operation), high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, output format) that would be helpful without annotations, making it incomplete for full agent guidance but not critically deficient.

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, documenting all three parameters (app_sys_id, query, limit) clearly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('pages within a Next Experience (UI Builder) application'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_uib_pages' or 'list_portal_pages', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full 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 pages or applications. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'get_uib_page' for single pages, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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