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 states the tool changes the active instance for the session, implying a state mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to ongoing operations, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications, error conditions, or what 'active for this session' entails, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full impact.

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 the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Instance name as configured (e.g., "prod", "dev", "customer_a")'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('switch') and resource ('active ServiceNow instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'switch_update_set' by specifying the session context. It's precise and unambiguous.

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 when changing the active instance for the session, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like configured instances or effects on subsequent operations). It's adequate but lacks detailed context.

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