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. It states the tool submits for approval, implying a mutation that might trigger notifications or status changes, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for brevity in tool descriptions.

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 submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects like notifications or status updates. For a mutation tool in a workflow context, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively, making this inadequate for the task.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself provides clear descriptions for 'change_id' and 'approval_comments'. Since the description doesn't explain parameters further, it doesn't compensate for the low coverage, but the schema is self-sufficient here, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 'Submit a change request for approval' clearly states the action (submit) and target (change request), but it's somewhat vague about what 'for approval' entails—does it initiate an approval workflow, send notifications, or change status? It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'approve_change' and 'reject_change', but could be more specific about the exact 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after creating a change request with 'create_change_request', or if it's for a specific approval stage. The presence of sibling tools like 'approve_change' and 'reject_change' suggests a workflow, but the description offers no context on sequencing or prerequisites.

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