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. 'Create a new knowledge base' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what parameters are needed, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. The description should provide much more context given the complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters (title, description, owner, managers, publish_workflow, retire_workflow) are documented in the schema. The description provides zero information about any parameters, their purposes, or how they should be used, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 action ('Create') and resource ('knowledge base in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_article' or 'create_category', but it's specific enough to identify the exact resource being created.

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. With siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' and 'create_article' available, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this tool is the right choice versus other creation tools.

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