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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate 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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place by conveying the essential action and 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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool for updating script includes with 7 sub-parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a script include is, what fields can be updated, the update behavior, or the expected response, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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 what's implied by 'update an existing script include'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object with 7 sub-parameters), the description fails to add any meaningful semantic context about what can be updated (e.g., script content, description, active status) or how to use the parameters.

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 script include in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_article', 'update_catalog_category', etc., which follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern, so it doesn't fully differentiate from siblings.

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 script include ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creation vs. update), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_script_include' or 'delete_script_include' for related operations.

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