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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (update + resource).

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid change request ID, which fields are updatable, what the update operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 zero information about parameters. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema has descriptions but they're not counted in coverage), the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters are needed, what 'change_id' refers to, or which fields can be updated. This leaves all 11 parameters undocumented in the description context.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing change request in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'create_change_request' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_article' or 'update_incident' beyond the resource type.

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 (like needing a change request ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update operations on other ServiceNow entities. The agent must 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.