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. It mentions a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context about permissions. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether the action is destructive, what happens to the draft after publishing, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core action and includes a critical prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values. For a mutation tool with one parameter, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full context of use.

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 single parameter 'sys_id' documented as 'System ID of the article to publish'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a draft knowledge article'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_knowledge_article' or 'retire_knowledge_article', which might involve similar resources but different actions, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 implied usage by stating 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which hints at a prerequisite condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_knowledge_article' or 'create_knowledge_article', nor does it provide exclusions or clear contextual guidance beyond the prerequisite.

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