ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'list' without any information about permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 with a single, direct phrase. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it under-specifies critical details.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning the required 'catalog_item_id' or optional ones like 'limit' and 'offset'. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving all parameter meanings and usage 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 'List catalog item variables' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'catalog item variables', but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or relationship to sibling tools like 'get_catalog_item' or 'create_catalog_item_variable'. This provides only basic purpose without meaningful differentiation.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_catalog_item' (which might retrieve item details including variables) or 'update_catalog_item_variable'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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