ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List users' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 with just four words ('List users in ServiceNow'), making it front-loaded and waste-free. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, output format, behavioral traits like pagination or filtering, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation with multiple filters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 provides no information about parameters, while the schema description coverage is 0% (the schema has descriptions, but coverage calculation is given as 0%). With 5 parameters documented only in the schema and no additional context in the description, the agent lacks semantic understanding beyond raw schema definitions. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 users in ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users in ServiceNow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of listing this provides (e.g., filtered vs. all users) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'create_user' beyond the basic action.

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. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparison to other user-related tools like 'get_user' (for single user details) or 'create_user' (for creating users), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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