servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation occurs 'without saving', which is a key behavioral trait indicating this is a read-only check. However, it doesn't mention error handling, return format (e.g., success/failure, detailed error messages), performance implications, or authentication needs. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Validate a property value') and adds a critical constraint ('without saving'). There's zero waste—every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent 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 the tool's moderate complexity (validation without persistence), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary action and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves the agent to guess about outcomes and edge cases.

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%, with both parameters ('name' and 'value') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints like property name must exist). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate a property value against its declared type constraints without saving'. It specifies the verb ('validate'), resource ('property value'), and key constraint ('without saving'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'validate_artifact' or 'bulk_get_properties', which might have overlapping validation aspects.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for validation before saving, but doesn't specify alternatives (e.g., using 'set_system_property' for direct setting, or 'bulk_set_properties' for multiple properties) or prerequisites. No explicit when-not-to-use context is given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description alone.

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