ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., paginated), rate limits, or error conditions. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a changeset is, how results are structured, filtering options, or typical use cases. For a parameter-rich tool in a ServiceNow context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 no parameters, while the input schema has 7 parameters (limit, offset, state, application, developer, timeframe, query) with 0% schema description coverage. This leaves all parameters undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. The agent must infer parameter usage from names alone.

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 changesets from ServiceNow' states the basic action (list) and resource (changesets), but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'list_change_requests' or 'get_changeset_details'. It doesn't specify whether this lists all changesets or filtered ones, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 like 'get_changeset_details' (for specific changesets) or 'list_change_requests' (for related entities). The description implies a listing function but offers no context on prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.

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