Skip to main content
Glama
JLKmach

ServiceNow MCP Server

by JLKmach

get_change_request_details

Retrieve comprehensive details about a specific ServiceNow change request using its ID to view status, scope, and implementation information.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
change_idYesChange request ID or sys_id

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function that implements the tool logic: validates params, fetches change request details and associated tasks via ServiceNow REST API.
    def get_change_request_details(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get details of a change request from ServiceNow.
    
        Args:
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            server_config: The server configuration.
            params: The parameters for getting change request details.
    
        Returns:
            The change request details.
        """
        # Unwrap and validate parameters
        result = _unwrap_and_validate_params(
            params, 
            GetChangeRequestDetailsParams,
            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",
            }
        
        # Make the API request
        url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_request/{validated_params.change_id}"
        
        params = {
            "sysparm_display_value": "true",
        }
        
        try:
            response = requests.get(url, headers=headers, params=params)
            response.raise_for_status()
            
            result = response.json()
            
            # Get tasks associated with this change request
            tasks_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_task"
            tasks_params = {
                "sysparm_query": f"change_request={validated_params.change_id}",
                "sysparm_display_value": "true",
            }
            
            tasks_response = requests.get(tasks_url, headers=headers, params=tasks_params)
            tasks_response.raise_for_status()
            
            tasks_result = tasks_response.json()
            
            return {
                "success": True,
                "change_request": result["result"],
                "tasks": tasks_result["result"],
            }
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error getting change request details: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error getting change request details: {str(e)}",
            }
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input schema for the tool, requiring 'change_id'.
    class GetChangeRequestDetailsParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for getting change request details."""
    
        change_id: str = Field(..., description="Change request ID or sys_id")
  • Tool registration in the central get_tool_definitions() function's dictionary, mapping name to (handler, schema, return_type, description, serialization).
    "get_change_request_details": (
        get_change_request_details_tool,
        GetChangeRequestDetailsParams,
        str,  # Expects JSON string
        "Get detailed information about a specific change request",
        "json",  # Tool returns list/dict
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. With no annotations and simple schema, more context would improve agent understanding.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't clarify the format of 'change_id' (e.g., numeric vs. alphanumeric) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles documentation adequately.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific change request'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_change_requests' or 'get_changeset_details', which would require more specific scope definition to earn a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_change_requests' for multiple records or 'get_changeset_details' for related entities. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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