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 of behavioral disclosure. The '[Write]' prefix hints at a mutation operation, but the description doesn't clarify what 'Schedule' entails—whether it creates a calendar event, sends notifications, updates a change request status, or requires specific permissions. It lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or confirmation of success.

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 ('Schedule a Change Advisory Board (CAB) meeting'). There is no wasted verbiage, and the '[Write]' prefix quickly signals the operation type. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after scheduling (e.g., does it return a meeting ID? update the change request?), potential errors, or dependencies. Given the complexity of scheduling a CAB meeting in a change management context, more behavioral and outcome details are 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 the schema fully documents all four parameters (change_id, date, duration_minutes, attendees). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples (e.g., 'CHG0012345' for change_id) or constraints (e.g., valid group names for attendees). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Schedule') and resource ('Change Advisory Board (CAB) meeting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_change_request' or 'approve_request' by focusing specifically on scheduling a CAB meeting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scheduling tools (like 'schedule_notification'), though those appear unrelated to CAB meetings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a change request must exist first), exclusions, or related tools like 'submit_change_for_approval' or 'approve_request'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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