Local MCP

ServiceNow Update Incident

servicenow_update_incident

Destructive

Update fields on an existing ServiceNow incident — state, priority, assignment. Use sys_id from servicenow_get_incident. Called without confirm it returns a preview of the fields that would change and sends nothing; pass confirm=true to update.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	1=New, 2=In Progress, 3=On Hold, 6=Resolved, 7=Closed
`sys_id`	Yes	Incident sys_id from servicenow_get_incident
`confirm`	No	Must be true to send; without it nothing is sent and the call returns a preview of every field.
`urgency`	No	1=Critical, 2=High, 3=Medium, 4=Low
`priority`	No	1=Critical, 2=High, 3=Moderate, 4=Low, 5=Planning
`remember`	No	With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so ("don't ask again"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.
`assigned_to`	No	Username or email to assign to
`close_notes`	No	Resolution notes (required when state=6 or 7)
`short_description`	No	Updated summary

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`state`	No
`number`	No
`sys_id`	Yes
`updated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / remember

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so (\"don't ask again\"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to send; without it nothing is sent and the call returns a preview of every field.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedSep 19, 2026
RemovedJul 31, 2026
First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: without confirm the call is a dry run that 'sends nothing' and returns a preview of the fields that would change. It stops short of stating whether updates are irreversible or how partial fields behave, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the sys_id prerequisite, then the confirm safety gate. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (preview unless confirmed) is front-loaded in the latter half.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema, 100% param coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing piece — the mutation/send gate. Minor residual gaps: whether untouched fields are preserved and any permission requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents state/priority/urgency enumerations and the close_notes requirement for state 6/7. The description restates the main field groups and the confirm gate but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update fields on an existing ServiceNow incident') and enumerates the affected field families (state, priority, assignment). This clearly separates it from servicenow_create_incident and servicenow_add_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain — obtain sys_id from servicenow_get_incident — and explains the two-step preview/confirm invocation flow. It does not explicitly exclude sibling mutations (e.g. when to use add_comment instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.