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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (mutation tool with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'params' object, required 'activity_id', or optional fields like 'name' and 'description'. For a tool with 1 parameter (a nested object with multiple properties), this is a significant gap.

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 activity in a workflow'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_workflow_activity' (create) and 'delete_workflow_activity' (remove). However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., name, description), which prevents a perfect score.

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 activity), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_workflow' or 'reorder_workflow_activities'. Usage is implied from the verb 'Update' but not explicitly stated.

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