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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, 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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'knowledge base' is in ServiceNow context, doesn't describe parameters or their effects, and provides no information about the return format. Given the complexity implied by the parameter set, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters whatsoever - it doesn't mention limit, offset, active filtering, or query capabilities. With 4 undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this is a critical 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 knowledge bases from ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_articles' or 'list_categories'. It doesn't specify whether this lists all knowledge bases or has specific filtering capabilities beyond what parameters imply.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_knowledge_base', 'get_article', and 'list_articles', there's no indication of when listing knowledge bases is appropriate versus listing articles or other resources. The description offers no context about prerequisites 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.