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 ('WRITE_ENABLED=true') which adds some behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on failure, or any rate limits, leaving 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key prerequisite without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite. However, for a mutation tool with two parameters, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output expectations, making it only adequate with clear gaps.

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 ('sys_id' and 'fields') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the structure of 'fields' or typical use cases, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Service Portal widget's source code'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_ui_action' or 'update_uib_component' which also update different types of resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from all alternatives.

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 implies when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_portal_widget' or other update tools for different resources, leaving gaps in guidance.

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