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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify if it returns all categories or requires filtering, mention pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' in schema but not described), or detail error conditions. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List categories') and context ('in a knowledge base'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of category objects), how filtering works, or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a list operation with multiple filters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameter descriptions are missing in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention any filters like 'knowledge_base', 'parent_category', or 'query', or explain pagination with 'limit' and 'offset'. With 6 parameters entirely undocumented, this fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 categories in a knowledge base' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('categories'), specifying the domain ('knowledge base'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_articles' or 'list_knowledge_bases' by focusing on categories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_catalog_categories', which might be a similar but distinct resource, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a knowledge base ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_catalog_categories'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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