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 fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related workflow elements, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like safety, return values, or error handling, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'activity_id' represents, its format (e.g., sys_id), or how to obtain it, leaving the single required parameter poorly understood.

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 ('Delete') and target ('an activity from a workflow'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_workflow_activity' or 'reorder_workflow_activities' by focusing on removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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, such as when deletion is appropriate compared to deactivation or updating. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or consequences, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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