ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Get activities') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get activities for a specific workflow.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by adding a brief note on parameters or usage context.

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 (a read operation with parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, or differentiation from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for the agent to use the tool confidently without additional context.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain that 'workflow_id' is required or that 'version' is optional for filtering activities by version. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance on how to use the tool effectively.

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 'Get activities for a specific workflow' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'activities for a specific workflow', making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'activities' entail (e.g., tasks, steps, logs) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_workflow_details' or 'list_workflow_versions', which might provide related information. This meets the minimum viable standard but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings such as 'get_workflow_details' (which might include activity information) and 'list_workflow_versions' (which could relate to version-specific activities), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone, which is inadequate.

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