servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The '[Scripting]' tag adds minimal context but doesn't compensate for the lack of detailed behavioral traits needed 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 extremely concise with only two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing a context tag. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the '[Scripting]' tag adds brief context without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details such as behavioral constraints, error handling, return values, and full parameter documentation. The '[Scripting]' hint is insufficient to cover these gaps, making the description inadequate for safe and effective tool 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 33% (only 'sys_id' has a description), leaving 'label' and 'description' undocumented. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema covers one parameter adequately, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage on the other two parameters.

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 'UI Builder component', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_uib_component' by indicating modification rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_uib_page', leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[Scripting]' which might imply a context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or direct alternatives among siblings like 'update_uib_page' or 'update_ui_action'. This lack of explicit usage context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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