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 but offers only the basic action ('List'). It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., paginated format), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is appropriately sized for a basic tool and front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place by stating the essential purpose.

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 (5 sub-parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a list tool with filtering options, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use, especially compared to more documented siblings.

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 1 parameter (a nested object with 5 sub-parameters) and 0% schema description coverage (the schema's descriptions are generic). This leaves all parameter details undocumented in both the schema and description, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent must infer usage from parameter 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 script includes from ServiceNow' states the verb ('List') and resource ('script includes') with the platform context ('from ServiceNow'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools like list_articles or list_users, nor does it specify what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered retrieval vs. full dump). This makes it vague compared to more specific sibling tools.

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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions), and no reference to sibling tools like get_script_include for single-item retrieval or create_script_include for creation. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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