Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_recordA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that only provided fields are updated and others remain untouched, but it omits details on permissions, error handling, reversibility, or response behavior—important 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a straightforward update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and partial-update behavior. However, lacking annotations, it omits failure modes and permission requirements, leaving the description somewhat incomplete for full standalone use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics; it merely reiterates the partial-update behavior already present in the 'fields' parameter description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Update'), specifies the resource ('existing record on any ServiceNow table'), and the key identifier ('by sys_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_record and delete_record.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool (updating by sys_id) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as query_table to find the sys_id first. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

• execute_scriptA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important traits: the script runs inside a Scripted REST API resource, must use response.setBody for returns, and auto-deploys/cleans up. However, it doesn't mention execution limits, error handling, or permission requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose, execution context, and lifecycle behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has moderate complexity with no output schema. The description explains how to return data and lists available APIs, but omits potential side effects, error handling, and execution constraints. This is a useful but incomplete picture for a script execution tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters. The description adds context about available APIs and response handling, but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Run server-side JavaScript on the ServiceNow PDI' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (query_table, get_record, etc.) which handle data operations, whereas this tool executes arbitrary server-side code.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for executing server-side JavaScript with access to GlideRecord, gs, and other APIs. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies it is for custom scripting beyond simple CRUD operations.

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

• create_recordA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does reveal a key trait: 'No table restrictions — the PDI is the sandbox,' which tells the agent the tool is safe for a sandbox and works universally. However, it does not disclose side effects of creating records on certain tables (e.g., triggering business rules) or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage context and the sandbox note. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a create tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to choose and invoke it: what it does, when to use it, and a safety note about the PDI. It lacks explicit return-value info, but with no output schema this is not required for selection.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema fully describes both parameters with examples ('sys_script', 'sys_ws_definition') and field value types. The description adds example table types, but these are already present in the schema. The 'fields' parameter is thoroughly described in the schema, so the description adds no unique semantic value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Create a new record on any ServiceNow table' — a specific verb and resource. It then lists concrete example tables (Business Rules, Script Includes, Scripted REST APIs), which distinguishes it from update/delete/query siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'Use this to deploy solutions' provides clear usage context, with a list of typical table types. It does not explicitly contrast with update_record or delete_record, but the create verb makes the intended use obvious. No exclusion criteria are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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

• delete_recordA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'Returns confirmation' and that it works 'any ServiceNow table,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permanence, irreversibility, or required permissions, which are important for a destructive operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, using three short sentences that each serve a purpose: action, return value, and usage context. No unnecessary words or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the return behavior, and a typical use case. It could be improved by noting that deletion is permanent and irreversible, but the core information is present.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in detail. The description reinforces that deletion is by sys_id but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a record from any ServiceNow table by sys_id.' It uses a specific verb (delete) with a resource (record) and scope (any ServiceNow table), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_record, update_record, and query_table.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It provides clear usage context: 'Use for cleanup after testing.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid.

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

• get_recordA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The allowlist constraint is disclosed, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), permission requirements, or output format beyond 'full details'. For a read operation, this is acceptable but not thorough, so a 3 is appropriate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise: two main sentences plus a short constraint statement. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple 2-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and constraints. It lacks explicit error/return details, but 'full details' suffices. With no output schema, it does enough to set expectations. A 4 reflects its near-completeness for this tool's complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('table' and 'sys_id') are well-described in the schema. The description adds minor context (like 'from a prior query_table call') but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a single ServiceNow record') and identifies the key identifier (sys_id). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like query_table (which lists multiple records) and create/update/delete operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly states when to use this tool: when you already know the sys_id from a prior query_table call and need full details. It implicitly steers to query_table when sys_id is unknown, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not cases. Still, the context is clear and useful.

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

• count_tableA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly discloses the return type ('ONLY an integer count'), the absence of record data, and the allowlist restriction. This is good, but it omits details like error behavior, performance implications, or authentication requirements, which would have made it more complete.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage examples and a constraint. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (two parameters, simple integer output), the description adequately covers the purpose, usage context, and output type. It also mentions the allowlist constraint, which is important for proper invocation. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement about the return value.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (`table` and `query`), including examples and max lengths. The tool description only paraphrases 'sysparm_query filter' and 'table', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Thus, 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.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Count records') plus the resource ('ServiceNow table') and the filtering mechanism ('matching a sysparm_query filter'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like query_table by stating it 'Returns ONLY an integer count — no record data', which unambiguously defines its scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for 'how many' questions' with concrete examples. It also notes that it is 'Subject to the same table + query filter allowlist as query_table', giving a constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use query_table if you need record data'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

• query_tableA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: returns human-readable display values for reference fields, and enforces an allowlist (some tables/fields denied). It does not mention error handling or response format, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and key behavioral constraints. No redundant or filler content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, constraints, and return behavior. It does not detail response structure, but the schema covers parameters well, making the tool sufficiently understood for typical use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'sysparm_query filter' is already in param description). It reinforces the allowlist, but does not substantially augment parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('ServiceNow table'), and lists example use cases ('incidents, change requests, hardware assets'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing querying via sysparm_query filter rather than fetching a single record, counting, or searching KB.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear usage context ('Use this to find records...') and mentions constraints (allowlist). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., get_record for single record retrieval), but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this for broad queries.

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

• search_kbA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only published articles are returned and that results are subject to the kb_knowledge field allowlist, providing valuable behavioral context. It could mention more (e.g., result format) but is quite transparent for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance and constraints. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple search tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, and key constraints (published-only, allowlist). With no output schema, a brief note about return fields would improve completeness, so 4.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are thoroughly documented with examples and constraints. The description adds no new parameter-level insights, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('ServiceNow knowledge base'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_table by focusing on published articles and text queries.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user is asking how to do something, troubleshooting, or looking for documented procedures.' However, it lacks when-not scenarios or named alternatives, so it doesn't fully hit the 5 criteria.

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

• health_checkA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the exact return fields (status, uptime, ServiceNow reachability, audit log writability, policy load time, phase, version), giving a transparent picture of behavior. It does not mention side effects, but a health check is inherently read-only.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields and usage. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, return values, and intended use. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, as there are none to explain.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool checks the MCP server's liveness and control state, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource (server health). It distinguishes itself from sibling data-operation tools like query_table and create_record.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for demos and monitoring.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated operations, leaving no ambiguity.

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