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 ('Approve') but doesn't describe what happens upon approval (e.g., state transitions, notifications, permissions required, or side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and implications.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. This is an example of appropriate conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'reject_change'), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, usage context, and what distinguishes it from alternatives. For a tool that modifies system state, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it 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?

The description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has only one required parameter ('params' object with nested properties). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add parameter details, but the low parameter count (effectively 1) and clear schema structure mitigate this. The baseline is 4 since the tool has minimal parameters, though the description provides no additional semantic context.

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 states the action ('Approve') and resource ('a change request'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'reject_change' or explain what approval entails beyond the verb. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the approval process or its effects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_change' or 'submit_change_for_approval'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the change must be in an approvable state) or context for when approval is appropriate. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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