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 only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (1 parameter with nested properties), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 provides no parameter information, while the input schema has 1 parameter (a nested object with three properties) and 0% schema description coverage. Since the schema lacks descriptions for the nested properties (user_id, user_name, email), the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean or how they're used, leaving semantics unclear.

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 user in ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user'), but it's vague about what 'specific' means compared to sibling tools like 'list_users'. It doesn't distinguish whether this retrieves by ID, name, or other criteria, leaving ambiguity about its exact scope versus the list operation.

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 like 'list_users'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single user, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a user identifier) or contrast it with other user-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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