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. It states 'View', which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this is safe, requires specific permissions, involves rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 key information ('View service dependencies and related CIs') and includes the purpose ('for impact analysis'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a read-only view tool with one parameter), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain output values or behavioral nuances, and with no annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves or what results to expect. This makes it complete enough for basic use but insufficient for full transparency.

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 'service_sys_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 ('View') and resource ('service dependencies and related CIs'), and it includes the intended use case ('for impact analysis'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also involve service mapping or impact analysis, such as 'cmdb_impact_analysis' or 'get_cmdb_ci', which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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 mentions 'for impact analysis' as a general context, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'cmdb_impact_analysis' or 'get_cmdb_ci' from the sibling list. This lack of explicit usage instructions results in a low score.

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