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 minimal information. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether there are rate limits, what happens on failure, or what the return format looks like. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured—it simply lacks necessary detail.

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 parameters in a nested structure, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'listing workflows' entails, what information is returned, how filtering works, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with multiple filtering parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 zero information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no descriptions at the top level, only within nested definitions), the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters are available, their purposes, or how they affect the listing. The agent must rely entirely on the nested schema definitions without any high-level guidance.

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 workflows from ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this lists all workflows, active workflows, or workflows with certain characteristics, nor does it mention the return format. While it distinguishes from obvious non-list siblings like 'create_workflow', it doesn't differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_workflow_versions'.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_workflows' over 'list_workflow_versions' or 'get_workflow_details', nor does it specify prerequisites, required permissions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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