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. It states 'Get a specific service catalog item,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Get' returns (e.g., full details vs. summary). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specific service catalog item,' hinting at an identifier parameter, but doesn't explicitly name or explain the 'item_id' parameter from the schema. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 'Get a specific service catalog item' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service catalog item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_catalog_items' or 'get_article', leaving room for ambiguity.

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., needing an item ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_catalog_items' for browsing or 'get_article' for similar retrieval operations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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