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 explicitly states '[Write]', indicating a mutation operation, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns a record ID). For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 behavioral note ('[Write]'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity (a write operation with 6 parameters, 3 required) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, and it provides no guidance on usage versus alternatives. For a mutation tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Record a deployment event in ServiceNow for audit and velocity tracking.' It specifies the verb ('Record'), resource ('deployment event'), and platform ('ServiceNow'), with a clear objective ('audit and velocity tracking'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deployments' or 'rollback_deployment', which is why it doesn't achieve 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 specific permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for querying deployments), or related tools like 'list_deployments' for viewing records or 'rollback_deployment' for reversing deployments. The lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness.

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