ServiceNow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Reorder activities in a workflow' implies a mutation operation but fails to describe critical aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing data, what happens to activities not listed, error conditions, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, achieving optimal efficiency in structure.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, usage context, and output information, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool without significant guesswork.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain 'workflow_id' or 'activity_ids' (e.g., format, source, or that 'activity_ids' must be a complete reordered list), failing to 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 'Reorder activities in a workflow' clearly states the verb ('reorder') and resource ('activities in a workflow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_workflow_activity' or 'delete_workflow_activity' beyond the basic action, lacking specificity about what distinguishes this reordering operation.

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 an existing workflow), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_workflow_activity' or 'get_workflow_activities', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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