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. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether this action is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. It lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool in a complex system like ServiceNow.

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 tool with a clear name and follows the principle of front-loading the most important information. Every word earns its place.

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, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful addition, what data is returned, error handling, or system-specific constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in the ServiceNow ecosystem.

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 zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage (only titles, no descriptions in the main schema). With 1 required parameter (a nested object with 5 properties), the agent receives no semantic guidance about what 'params' should contain, what 'workflow_version_id' refers to, or how 'activity_type' values like 'approval' differ in behavior.

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 new activity') and target resource ('to a workflow in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow_activity' by focusing specifically on activity addition rather than workflow creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reorder_workflow_activities' or 'delete_workflow_activity' in the same domain.

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 workflow version), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow_activity'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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