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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns a workflow ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the fundamental 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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workflow, what happens after creation, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description provides only the minimal action statement without the necessary context for effective tool invocation.

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 zero information about parameters beyond what's implied by 'workflow'. With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (through the nested 'params' object), the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The agent must rely entirely on the schema's property names without any semantic guidance from the description.

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 workflow in ServiceNow'), providing specific verb+resource information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_workflow' or 'list_workflows' by specifying creation rather than modification or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_change_request' or 'create_incident' beyond the workflow focus.

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 no indications of prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'activate_workflow', 'deactivate_workflow', or 'update_workflow'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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