ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a creation operation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral expectations, success/failure conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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 mentions no parameters at all, while the input schema shows 5 parameters (title, description, knowledge_base, parent_category, active) with 0% schema description coverage. This leaves all parameter meanings undocumented, creating significant ambiguity about what's required for successful category creation.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new category in a knowledge base'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_category' or 'list_categories', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 like needing an existing knowledge base, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'create_catalog_category' or explain when to use 'create_category' versus 'list_categories' for viewing existing ones.

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