ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states this updates an existing change request, implying mutation, but doesn't cover important aspects like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, how validation works, what happens on failure, or typical response format. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and comprehensive schema documentation. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and 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 this is a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, validation, error handling, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in a ServiceNow change management workflow.

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 already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with titles, descriptions, types, defaults, and required status. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing change request in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'create_change_request' by specifying 'existing'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_article' or 'update_incident' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a change_id), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new requests), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'approve_change', 'reject_change', or 'submit_change_for_approval' that might handle specific state transitions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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