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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Deactivate' implies a state change operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects running workflow instances, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what deactivation means in ServiceNow context, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens to active instances, or what the tool returns. The presence of sibling tools like 'activate_workflow' and 'delete_workflow_activity' suggests this is part of a workflow management system that needs more contextual explanation.

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%, but the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'workflow_id' is documented in the schema but not explained in the description. Since there's only one parameter and the schema covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value beyond the obvious.

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 ('Deactivate') and resource ('a workflow in ServiceNow'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'activate_workflow' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between these complementary operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'activate_workflow' is clearly the opposite operation, the description doesn't mention it or explain prerequisites like whether the workflow must be active first, what happens to running instances, or when deactivation might be appropriate versus deletion or modification.

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