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 (ATF_ENABLED=true) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, what happens on execution (e.g., test results, side effects), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that executes tests.

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 and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of executing a test (a potentially state-changing operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, status), behavioral implications, or error conditions. The prerequisite is noted, but overall, it does not provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 test'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., how to obtain the sys_id, format examples). 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 action ('Execute') and target ('a single ATF test'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'run_atf_suite' by specifying 'single test' versus 'suite', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is not tautological with the tool name.

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 a prerequisite ('requires ATF_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_atf_suite' for multiple tests), nor does it provide exclusions or detailed guidance on scenarios. The usage is implied but not fully articulated.

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