servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'recent' conversations but doesn't define what 'recent' means (time window, default sorting). It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what fields are returned. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, how results are sorted, what data is returned, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns multiple conversation objects, more context about the response structure and behavior would be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capability through 'recent'. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors beyond the schema's 'limit' default, or filtering logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Virtual Agent conversations') with the qualifier 'recent'. It distinguishes this from other conversation-related tools like 'get_va_conversation' (singular) and 'list_va_topics_full', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_va_conversation' for single conversations or 'list_va_topics_full' for topics. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations beyond the implied 'recent' timeframe.

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