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 a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like, which is insufficient 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it states the action and a key prerequisite directly. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, error handling), doesn't explain the return values, and relies solely on the schema for parameters, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'sys_id' and 'fields' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field keys or update constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Update' and the resource 'a business rule', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_incident' beyond the resource type, which is why it doesn't reach 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 an implied usage context with 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_business_rule' or other update tools) or any exclusions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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