ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's irreversible, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resolve' means in ServiceNow context, parameter purposes, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. It doesn't mention the required 'params' object or its nested fields (incident_id, resolution_code, resolution_notes), leaving parameters completely undocumented beyond the schema structure.

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 states the action ('Resolve') and target ('an incident in ServiceNow'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'resolve' entails operationally and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_incident' or 'create_incident' that might handle incident states.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., incident must be in a specific state), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'update_incident' for modifying incidents.

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