ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List incidents' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though schema shows limit/offset), sorting defaults, permission requirements, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a listing tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'incident' in ServiceNow context, what fields are returned, how results are ordered, or any ServiceNow-specific behaviors. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone.

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%, but the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'list incidents.' The schema documents 6 parameters with good descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter 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 'List incidents from ServiceNow' clearly states the action (list) and resource (incidents) with the source (ServiceNow). It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't differentiate from other list tools like list_articles or list_change_requests beyond the resource type.

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. With siblings like get_incident (presumably for single incidents) and update_incident, there's no indication of when listing is preferred over getting individual incidents or how this relates to incident management workflows.

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