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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation with filtering, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that states the core functionality upfront with no wasted words. It follows a clear 'verb + resource + qualifier' structure that's immediately scannable.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, authentication needs, or provide meaningful parameter guidance. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured documentation.

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% (the single parameter 'params' has no description in the schema), and the description only mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what parameters are available or their semantics. With 5 actual parameters nested inside 'params', the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('groups from ServiceNow') with scope ('with optional filtering'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'list_workflows' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 mentions 'optional filtering' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group' (which doesn't exist in siblings) or how it relates to other list operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are included.

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