servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for testing with sample inputs and includes '[Write]', implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'test mode' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single sentence that states the core functionality. However, the inclusion of '[Write]' feels redundant since the action 'Execute' already implies a write operation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool that executes flows in test mode with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'test mode' means, the expected output, error handling, or how it differs from production execution, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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, documenting both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score without compensating beyond the schema.

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 ('Execute a flow in test mode') and the resource ('a flow'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_flow' or 'run_atf_test', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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, such as needing a pre-existing flow, or compare it to similar tools like 'trigger_flow' or 'run_atf_test', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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