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 mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which hints at permissions, but doesn't describe what 'trigger' entails (e.g., whether it's asynchronous, if it returns execution results, potential side effects, or rate limits). For a tool that likely initiates workflows, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 core action ('trigger a Flow Designer flow') and includes essential context ('optional input parameters' and the WRITE_ENABLED requirement) without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a significant action (triggering flows). It doesn't explain what happens after triggering (e.g., success/failure indicators, returned data), behavioral traits, or detailed usage scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('flow_sys_id' and 'inputs') adequately. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional input parameters,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's structured.

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 with a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('Flow Designer flow'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_flow' or 'test_flow', but the action is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 some usage context by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_flow' or 'test_flow', nor does it detail any exclusions or complementary tools.

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