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 address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new incident') and specifies the context ('in ServiceNow') clearly. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a write operation with multiple nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter requirements, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 1 parameter (which is a nested object with multiple sub-properties) has descriptions in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning that 'short_description' is required or what other fields like 'priority' or 'category' mean. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new incident in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_incident' and 'resolve_incident' by specifying creation rather than modification or resolution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_change_request' or 'create_article' beyond the resource type.

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., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing incidents), or clarify its role relative to sibling tools like 'update_incident' or 'resolve_incident'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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