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 'previews' changes, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, how changes are displayed, or if there are limitations like pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 and wastes no space, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but fails to provide behavioral context, usage guidelines, or details on output format. For a tool that likely returns a list of changes, more information would help the agent understand the result structure and implications.

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 parameter details (sys_id and limit). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what an 'Update Set' is or how the preview is formatted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 tool's purpose: 'Preview all changes contained in an Update Set.' It specifies the verb ('preview') and resource ('changes in an Update Set'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_update_sets' or 'complete_update_set,' which prevents 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an Update Set sys_id) or compare it to siblings like 'list_update_sets' (which lists Update Sets) or 'complete_update_set' (which finalizes changes). This lack of context leaves 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.