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 indicates a write operation ('Execute', with '[Write]' emphasis) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a security tool with mutation, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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. The '[Write]' annotation is redundant with 'Execute' but adds emphasis without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more structured but remains appropriately sized.

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's complexity (security playbook execution with mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, making it incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('security response playbook'), and specifies the target ('against an incident'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security playbook execution, unlike general incident management tools like 'resolve_incident' or 'create_security_incident'.

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 implies usage for security incident response but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trigger_agentic_playbook' or 'resolve_incident'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative guidance are provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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