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 the required WRITE_ENABLED condition, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Move'), what happens on failure, if it's reversible, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 action and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and it's structured to convey the essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutation effects or error handling. For a state-change tool, more context would be beneficial, but it's minimally viable.

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 'sys_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Move a change request to "Requested" state') and the resource ('change request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_request' or 'close_change_request', but the action is distinct enough to imply its unique role in the change request workflow.

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 context for when to use it, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_request' or 'update_change_request'. The usage is implied by the action of moving to a 'Requested' state, but no explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons is given.

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