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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), or potential side effects. It lacks critical context about the mutation's nature and consequences.

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 appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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, no output schema, and 7 nested parameter properties, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant guessing.

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 no parameters at all, while the input schema has 1 parameter (a nested object with 7 properties). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters are needed or their purposes, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond raw 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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing service catalog category'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_catalog_item' or other update tools, which would require more specific differentiation to earn a 5.

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 like 'create_catalog_category' or 'list_catalog_categories'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing category ID, or context about when updates are appropriate versus creating new categories.

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