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 capabilities but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 purpose and lists key capabilities without unnecessary words. Every element ('query ServiceNow records with filtering, field selection, pagination, and sorting') earns its place by communicating essential functionality.

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?

For a query tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (record format, error responses), doesn't mention authentication or rate limiting, and provides no examples of query syntax. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, more contextual information is needed.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing capabilities that correspond to parameters (filtering→query, field selection→fields, pagination→limit, sorting→orderBy), but doesn't provide additional syntax examples or constraints beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('query') and resource ('ServiceNow records') with specific capabilities (filtering, field selection, pagination, sorting). It distinguishes itself from simpler 'get' tools by emphasizing query functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cmdb_ci' or 'natural_language_search'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing specific retrieval operations (e.g., 'get_record', 'search_cmdb_ci', 'natural_language_search'), the description fails to indicate this is the general-purpose query tool for structured data retrieval across tables.

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