servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied but not stated), what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (mutation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic action and a prerequisite but omits behavioral details (e.g., error handling, response format), usage context relative to siblings, and any output expectations, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field values or constraints. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 scoped application'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'create_scoped_app' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_user'.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other update tools or 'create_scoped_app'), nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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