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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get activities' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 workflow systems, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively in a broader environment.

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 mentions 'a specific workflow' but does not elaborate on parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter ('workflow_id'), the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'activities' entail or how the optional 'version' parameter affects results, compensating poorly for the low 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 'Get activities for a specific workflow' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('activities for a specific workflow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_details' or 'list_workflows', which might retrieve related but different information, leaving some ambiguity in 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. With siblings like 'get_workflow_details' and 'list_workflow_versions', it's unclear if this tool is for listing all activities, filtering by status, or retrieving metadata, offering no context for selection.

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