ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' a script include, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the script include doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, return values, error conditions, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to operate this tool effectively in the broader ServiceNow ecosystem.

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. It mentions no parameters at all, while the input schema has one required parameter ('script_include_id'). The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a script include ID is or providing examples (e.g., names vs. numeric IDs), leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 script include from ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('script include'), and specifies it retrieves a 'specific' one rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_script_includes' or 'get_article', which follow similar patterns but for different resources.

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 sibling tools like 'list_script_includes' for browsing or 'get_article' for similar retrieval operations on different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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