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. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or what permissions are required. For a list operation with multiple parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This minimal structure is appropriate for such a brief statement.

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 (8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filtering works, or any behavioral aspects. For a list tool with rich filtering options, this minimal description is inadequate to guide proper use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters (limit, offset, state, type, category, assignment_group, timeframe, query) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for this coverage gap. This leaves all parameters semantically undefined.

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 change requests from ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('change requests from ServiceNow'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all change requests or filtered ones) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_change_request_details' or 'list_changesets', leaving room for ambiguity.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for browsing change requests versus 'get_change_request_details' for detailed views, or how it relates to 'list_changesets'. The absence of context or exclusions leaves the agent without usage direction.

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