ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a comment') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's basic function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does at a high level but lacks crucial context: no information about return values, error conditions, permissions, or behavioral details. Given the complexity of modifying data in a system like ServiceNow, more contextual information would be needed for 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 description mentions 'an incident' and 'a comment', which aligns with the two required parameters in the schema (incident_id and comment). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameter formats, constraints, or the optional 'is_work_note' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond parameter names.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an incident in ServiceNow'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other incident-related tools like 'create_incident', 'update_incident', and 'resolve_incident' by focusing specifically on comment addition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential comment-related alternatives that might not exist in the sibling list.

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., incident must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to other comment-adding mechanisms. While the sibling list shows no obvious comment-specific alternatives, there's no explicit comparison to general update tools or context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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