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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new catalog item variable', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for completeness, it scores high on conciseness as it avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point.

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 of creating a catalog item variable (implied by the detailed nested schema with 14 properties), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain parameters, behavior, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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, while the input schema has 1 parameter ('params') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself (the schema's description field is empty). This leaves all parameter details undocumented, making it unclear what 'params' should contain or how to structure the request.

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 'Create a new catalog item variable' clearly states the action (create) and resource (catalog item variable), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'catalog item variable' entails in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_catalog_item_variable' or 'list_catalog_item_variables', leaving room for confusion about when to use each.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to catalog item variables (e.g., 'list_catalog_item_variables', 'update_catalog_item_variable'), but the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others.

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