ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get optimization recommendations', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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: 'Get optimization recommendations for the service catalog.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 optimization recommendations, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the recommendations include, how they are returned, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely provides actionable insights, more context is needed to guide 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('params') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'category_id' or 'recommendation_types' are, their expected formats, or examples of valid values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 states the tool 'Get optimization recommendations for the service catalog', which provides a basic verb ('Get') and resource ('optimization recommendations for the service catalog'). However, it lacks specificity about what these recommendations entail (e.g., cost savings, performance improvements) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_catalog_item' or 'list_catalog_items', which might retrieve catalog data without optimization insights. The purpose is clear but vague in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it requires specific permissions or should be used after other operations. With siblings like 'get_catalog_item' or 'list_catalog_items', there is no indication of when optimization recommendations are needed over basic catalog data retrieval.

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