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 'Add a task' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the task is automatically activated, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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: 'Add a task to a change request.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence is essential to conveying the basic purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 mutation tool for adding tasks), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. With a parameter count of 1 (a nested object 'params'), schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema's properties (like 'change_id', 'short_description') are undocumented in both the schema and description. The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Add a task to a change request' clearly states the verb ('add') and resource ('task'), but it's somewhat vague about the specific action—it doesn't specify whether this creates a new task record, assigns an existing task, or triggers a workflow. It distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like 'get_change_request_details' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from closer siblings like 'update_workflow_activity' or 'create_change_request' in terms of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing change request), exclusions (e.g., not for updating tasks), or related tools like 'create_change_request' for initial setup or 'update_workflow_activity' for modifying tasks. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context.

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