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 discloses the prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful behavioral context about permissions. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and prerequisite, while the second provides usage context. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 5 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, response format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of output schema. For a mutation tool, this leaves room for improvement.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond the generic 'incidents, changes, etc.'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Upload a base64-encoded attachment'), target resource ('to a ServiceNow record'), and purpose ('Useful for adding files, screenshots, or documents to incidents, changes, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_attachment' by specifying creation rather than deletion, and from 'add_comment' or 'add_work_note' by focusing on file attachments rather than text notes.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool ('Useful for adding files, screenshots, or documents to incidents, changes, etc.') and includes a prerequisite condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., 'add_comment' for text notes).

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