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 only states the action ('Get detailed information') without mentioning permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a read 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, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient, though it could benefit from additional context to improve utility without sacrificing 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?

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, return values, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a 'change_id' is needed, but it doesn't explain what a 'change request ID or sys_id' is, its format, or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific change request', which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('change request'), making it clear what it does. However, it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_changeset_details' or 'get_workflow_details', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving a single change request by ID versus using 'list_change_requests' for multiple items, or how it differs from other 'get_' tools. This lack of context makes usage decisions difficult.

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