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 the tool is for getting information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., structure, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the tool's intent, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 workflow tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what information is returned, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 doesn't explain parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (workflow_id), the schema only provides basic titles and types. The description fails to add meaning, such as what constitutes a valid workflow ID or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific workflow', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow'), but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_workflow_activities' or 'list_workflows'. The description lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' entails.

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 siblings like 'list_workflows' (for listing workflows) or 'get_workflow_activities' (for workflow activities), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a workflow ID. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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