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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 is appropriately sized for a basic purpose statement, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details that would enhance usability.

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 8 updatable fields), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or the impact of updates, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

The description provides no information about parameters beyond the generic 'update' action. With 1 parameter (a nested object containing 8 fields) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema lacks titles or descriptions for the nested properties. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'item_id' refers to, what fields can be updated, or the semantics of null values, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update a service catalog item' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('service catalog item'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like 'update_catalog_category' or 'update_catalog_item_variable' among the siblings, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this update 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. With sibling tools like 'get_catalog_item' for reading and 'create_catalog_item_variable' for related operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, context (e.g., after retrieving an item), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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