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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.

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 of updating a workflow (a mutation operation with multiple parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameter information beyond implying a workflow needs updating. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object with 6 sub-parameters), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It doesn't mention required fields like 'workflow_id' or optional ones like 'name' or 'active', leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 an existing workflow in ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('workflow in ServiceNow'), but it's generic and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_workflow_activity'. It specifies the target system (ServiceNow), which adds some specificity, but lacks details about what aspects of a workflow can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), compare it to 'create_workflow' or 'deactivate_workflow', or indicate typical use cases. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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