ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit/offset), or potential side effects. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. While this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, the structure is optimal for minimal text—every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (6 sub-parameters in a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how results are structured, what filtering options exist beyond the schema, or behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions. For a list operation with multiple filtering parameters, the description should provide more context about usage and expected outcomes to be adequately 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 provides no information about parameters, while the schema description coverage is 0% (the schema has descriptions for individual parameters, but the overall coverage metric is given as 0%). With 1 parameter (a nested object containing 6 sub-parameters) and no parameter semantics in the description, it fails to compensate for the schema's coverage gap. The agent must rely entirely on the schema's field-level descriptions without any high-level guidance from the tool description.

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 'List knowledge articles' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge articles'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_article' or 'list_knowledge_bases', making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but doesn't fully distinguish itself from related operations.

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 sibling tools like 'get_article' (for retrieving a specific article) and 'list_knowledge_bases' (for listing knowledge bases rather than articles), there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no explicit or implied context for selection. This absence of usage guidance leaves the agent without direction on appropriate tool choice.

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