ServiceNow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens when fields are updated (e.g., whether changes are logged, if certain fields trigger workflows, permission requirements, or what the response contains). For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, how updates affect the incident lifecycle, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant external knowledge about ServiceNow incident management.

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 doesn't compensate at all. It doesn't mention the required 'incident_id' parameter or any of the 13 optional fields, leaving the agent completely dependent on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 incident in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_incident' by specifying 'existing incident', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_article' or 'update_change_request' 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 (e.g., needing an existing incident ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'resolve_incident' or 'update_change_request'. 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.