ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate if this is a mutation (likely, given 'publish'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). The single sentence lacks critical operational context.

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's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 (a mutation tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what publishing does, parameter roles, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't mention the required 'article_id' or optional 'workflow_state' and 'workflow_version' parameters, their purposes, or how they interact (e.g., default state 'published'). This leaves all parameters undocumented beyond the schema.

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 'Publish a knowledge article' restates the tool name 'publish_article' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'publish' and resource 'knowledge article', but lacks specificity about what publishing entails (e.g., making it live, changing workflow state) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_article' or 'create_article'.

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., article must exist), differentiate from similar tools (e.g., 'update_article' might also affect publication), or specify contexts (e.g., only for draft articles). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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