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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it's a destructive operation that modifies data, what happens to the Import Set after execution, whether there are side effects, rate limits, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a data loading tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 communicates the core purpose and key prerequisite without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 that this is a data loading/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'load data' means operationally, what format the data is loaded into, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed beyond WRITE_ENABLED, or what the tool returns. For a tool that presumably modifies system state, more behavioral context 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., what Transform Maps or Import Sets are, how to obtain their sys_ids). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a Transform Map') and the target ('on an Import Set to load data'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_transform_map' or 'list_transform_maps', which are read operations rather than execution tools.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some contextual guidance about when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool versus alternatives (like other data loading methods) or what happens after execution. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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