servicenow-mcp-ai

Test ServiceNow connection

servicenow_test_connection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify ServiceNow credentials and connectivity by reading one sys_user record and reporting status and latency, returning auth or network problems as ok:false.

Instructions

Verify the credentials work: reads one sys_user record, reports ok/status/latency. Auth and connectivity problems come back as ok:false, not errors.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "servicenow_test_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	No	Profile (default active)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`user`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`latencyMs`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 21, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedInput schema / properties / instance / description

Previous value: -"Connection profile to use for this call (default: the active profile). See servicenow_list_instances."New value: +"Profile (default active)"

addedInput schema / properties / instance / maxLength
```
Added value: +128
```

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```

First observedv2.0.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the underlying probe (one sys_user read), the response shape (ok/status/latency), and critically that auth and connectivity failures surface as ok:false rather than thrown errors. That error-semantics disclosure prevents an agent from misinterpreting a failed result.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the secondary failure-mode note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description supplies the key failure-mode context. The remaining gap is situational: it does not indicate which profile is probed by default or how it relates to the sibling status/capabilities tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'instance' parameter is documented as 'Profile (default active)', so the schema carries the burden. The description mentions no parameter behavior at all, leaving it at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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

Purpose4/5

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

A specific verb plus resource ('Verify the credentials work') with concrete mechanism: reads one sys_user record and reports ok/status/latency. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like servicenow_get_status or servicenow_check_capabilities, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied ('verify the credentials work') rather than stated as a condition, and no alternatives are named. With servicenow_get_status and servicenow_check_capabilities in the sibling list, the description should say when this test connection is preferred over those, but it does not.

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