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 the tool performs a 'move' operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the move is reversible, effects on item relationships, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: parameter details, behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), error conditions, and return values. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 'catalog items' and 'different category', which loosely relates to the parameters (item_ids and target_category_id), but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the parameter names imply. With 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters, the description fails to explain what these IDs represent, format requirements, or constraints (e.g., array size limits). It does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('catalog items'), specifying the destination ('to a different category'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_catalog_item' or 'create_catalog_category' by focusing on relocation rather than modification or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'reorder_workflow_activities' in terms of scope.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing existing items and categories), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent categories), or sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'update_catalog_item' for other modifications). Usage is implied only by the action described.

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