servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait (the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement), which is useful. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what the output looks like, or any rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loads the key information (action and prerequisite) with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling, which are important for a tool that performs an export/publish operation, making it only adequate.

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 the 'sys_id' parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Publish/export') and resource ('an update set to XML for deployment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_update_set' or 'commit_changeset', which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear context for when to use it ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), indicating a prerequisite condition. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives among siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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