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 the tool switches context, implying a mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions required, whether it affects other operations, error conditions, or what 'active Update Set context' means in practice. The '[Scripting]' tag adds minimal context but falls short of explaining behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief tag. There is no wasted language, and every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, return values, or error handling. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that likely changes system state.

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 documented as 'sys_id of the target Update Set'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond this, such as how to obtain the sys_id or format requirements. 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 tool's purpose: 'Switch the active Update Set context to a specified Update Set.' It uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('Update Set context'), and the '[Scripting]' tag adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ensure_active_update_set' or 'create_update_set', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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., needing an existing Update Set), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'ensure_active_update_set' or 'create_update_set'. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at a context but is too vague for clear usage instructions.

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