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. It mentions the prerequisite 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what happens if the job fails, rate limits, or the expected response format. The description is minimal and lacks details on execution outcomes or error handling.

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 ('Immediately execute a scheduled job on-demand') and includes a crucial prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of triggering a scheduled job (a mutation operation with potential side-effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on execution results, error cases, or dependencies, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 one parameter 'sys_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'sys_id' is or where to find it. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('execute') and resource ('scheduled job') with the specific action 'on-demand'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_scheduled_job' or 'update_scheduled_job' by focusing on immediate triggering rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'run_atf_suite' or other execution tools that might be confused with job triggering.

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 context with 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 manually running jobs through the UI or other automation tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools in the sibling list.

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