ServiceNow MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the recommendations come in, if there are rate limits, or if it's a computationally expensive operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized for what it communicates and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and one parameter with nested structure, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what optimization recommendations are, what they look like, how parameters affect them, or behavioral considerations. For a tool that presumably provides actionable insights, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions no parameters at all, while the schema shows one required parameter 'params' with nested properties 'recommendation_types' and 'category_id'. The description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the recommendations.

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 optimization recommendations for the service catalog' clearly states the action (get) and target (optimization recommendations for service catalog), but it's somewhat vague about what 'optimization recommendations' entail. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_catalog_items' or 'get_catalog_item' which might provide related data, though the focus on 'recommendations' provides some differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or what problem this tool solves compared to other catalog-related tools like 'list_catalog_items' or 'get_catalog_item'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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