ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Activate a workflow' but gives no information about what activation entails (e.g., changes workflow state, enables execution, requires specific permissions), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient for what it does convey.

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?

For a mutation tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what activation means, what parameter is needed, what permissions are required, what happens upon success/failure, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks essential context to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. The single required parameter 'workflow_id' is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing about format, constraints, or examples.

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 action ('Activate') and resource ('a workflow in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from its sibling 'deactivate_workflow', but the verb 'activate' provides inherent contrast. The description avoids tautology by not just repeating the tool name.

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., workflow must exist, user permissions), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'update_workflow' or 'create_workflow'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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