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 this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (e.g., default limit of 50), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all Virtual Agent topics') and adds only essential detail ('with category and status details'). There's zero waste or 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 the tool's complexity (a list operation with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects like pagination or usage context. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, it should provide more guidance to be fully complete.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters (active, category, query, limit) with their types and default values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'Virtual Agent topics' are or how the 'query' parameter is encoded. 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 ('all Virtual Agent topics'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It also mentions the scope of details included ('with category and status details'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_va_topic' or 'list_va_categories', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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_topic' (for single topic details) or 'list_va_categories' (for categories only), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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