Skip to main content
Glama
JLKmach

ServiceNow MCP Server

by JLKmach

approve_change

Approve change requests in ServiceNow by providing change ID, approver details, and optional comments to authorize modifications.

Instructions

Approve a change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
change_idYesChange request ID or sys_id
approver_idNoID of the approver
approval_commentsNoComments for the approval

Implementation Reference

  • Main execution function for the approve_change tool. It validates parameters, queries the approval record, updates it to approved state, and advances the change request to implement state.
    def approve_change(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Approve a change request in ServiceNow.
    
        Args:
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            server_config: The server configuration.
            params: The parameters for approving a change request.
    
        Returns:
            The result of the approval.
        """
        # Unwrap and validate parameters
        result = _unwrap_and_validate_params(
            params, 
            ApproveChangeParams,
            required_fields=["change_id"]
        )
        
        if not result["success"]:
            return result
        
        validated_params = result["params"]
        
        # Get the instance URL
        instance_url = _get_instance_url(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not instance_url:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find instance_url in either server_config or auth_manager",
            }
        
        # Get the headers
        headers = _get_headers(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not headers:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find get_headers method in either auth_manager or server_config",
            }
        
        # First, find the approval record
        approval_query_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver"
        
        query_params = {
            "sysparm_query": f"document_id={validated_params.change_id}",
            "sysparm_limit": 1,
        }
        
        try:
            approval_response = requests.get(approval_query_url, headers=headers, params=query_params)
            approval_response.raise_for_status()
            
            approval_result = approval_response.json()
            
            if not approval_result.get("result") or len(approval_result["result"]) == 0:
                return {
                    "success": False,
                    "message": "No approval record found for this change request",
                }
            
            approval_id = approval_result["result"][0]["sys_id"]
            
            # Now, update the approval record to approved
            approval_update_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver/{approval_id}"
            headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"
            
            approval_data = {
                "state": "approved",
            }
            
            if validated_params.approval_comments:
                approval_data["comments"] = validated_params.approval_comments
            
            approval_update_response = requests.patch(approval_update_url, json=approval_data, headers=headers)
            approval_update_response.raise_for_status()
            
            # Finally, update the change request state to "implement"
            change_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_request/{validated_params.change_id}"
            
            change_data = {
                "state": "implement",  # This may vary depending on ServiceNow configuration
            }
            
            change_response = requests.patch(change_url, json=change_data, headers=headers)
            change_response.raise_for_status()
            
            return {
                "success": True,
                "message": "Change request approved successfully",
            }
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error approving change: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error approving change: {str(e)}",
            }
  • Pydantic model defining the input schema for the approve_change tool, including required change_id and optional fields.
    class ApproveChangeParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for approving a change request."""
    
        change_id: str = Field(..., description="Change request ID or sys_id")
        approver_id: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="ID of the approver")
        approval_comments: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Comments for the approval")
  • Registration of the approve_change tool in the central tool_definitions dictionary, mapping name to handler, schema, return type, description, and serialization method.
    "approve_change": (
        approve_change_tool,
        ApproveChangeParams,
        str,
        "Approve a change request",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
  • Import and alias of the approve_change handler function as approve_change_tool for use in tool registration.
        approve_change as approve_change_tool,
    )
  • Helper function used by approve_change to unwrap, validate parameters against the Pydantic schema, and check required fields.
    def _unwrap_and_validate_params(params: Any, model_class: Type[T], required_fields: List[str] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Helper function to unwrap and validate parameters.
        
        Args:
            params: The parameters to unwrap and validate.
            model_class: The Pydantic model class to validate against.
            required_fields: List of required field names.
            
        Returns:
            A tuple of (success, result) where result is either the validated parameters or an error message.
        """
        # Handle case where params might be wrapped in another dictionary
        if isinstance(params, dict) and len(params) == 1 and "params" in params and isinstance(params["params"], dict):
            logger.warning("Detected params wrapped in a 'params' key. Unwrapping...")
            params = params["params"]
        
        # Handle case where params might be a Pydantic model object
        if not isinstance(params, dict):
            try:
                # Try to convert to dict if it's a Pydantic model
                logger.warning("Params is not a dictionary. Attempting to convert...")
                params = params.dict() if hasattr(params, "dict") else dict(params)
            except Exception as e:
                logger.error(f"Failed to convert params to dictionary: {e}")
                return {
                    "success": False,
                    "message": f"Invalid parameters format. Expected a dictionary, got {type(params).__name__}",
                }
        
        # Validate required parameters are present
        if required_fields:
            for field in required_fields:
                if field not in params:
                    return {
                        "success": False,
                        "message": f"Missing required parameter '{field}'",
                    }
        
        try:
            # Validate parameters against the model
            validated_params = model_class(**params)
            return {
                "success": True,
                "params": validated_params,
            }
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error validating parameters: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error validating parameters: {str(e)}",
            }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention what 'approve' actually does (status change, notifications, permissions required, side effects, or whether it's reversible). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after approval, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader change management workflow visible in sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Approve a change request' clearly states the action (approve) and resource (change request), but it's vague about what approval entails and doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'reject_change' tool. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the approval process or system context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_change' or 'submit_change_for_approval'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or workflow context, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic action.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JLKmach/servicenow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server