Skip to main content
Glama
JLKmach

ServiceNow MCP Server

by JLKmach

update_article

Modify existing knowledge articles in ServiceNow by updating content, categories, or metadata to maintain accurate documentation.

Instructions

Update an existing knowledge article

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
article_idYesID of the article to update
titleNoUpdated title of the article
textNoUpdated main body text for the article. Field supports html formatting and wiki markup based on the article_type. HTML is the default.
short_descriptionNoUpdated short description
categoryNoUpdated category for the article
keywordsNoUpdated keywords for search

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that updates a knowledge article by sending a PATCH request to the ServiceNow kb_knowledge table API.
    def update_article(
        config: ServerConfig,
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        params: UpdateArticleParams,
    ) -> ArticleResponse:
        """
        Update an existing knowledge article.
    
        Args:
            config: Server configuration.
            auth_manager: Authentication manager.
            params: Parameters for updating the article.
    
        Returns:
            Response with the updated article details.
        """
        api_url = f"{config.api_url}/table/kb_knowledge/{params.article_id}"
    
        # Build request data
        data = {}
    
        if params.title:
            data["short_description"] = params.title
        if params.text:
            data["text"] = params.text
        if params.short_description:
            data["short_description"] = params.short_description
        if params.category:
            data["kb_category"] = params.category
        if params.keywords:
            data["keywords"] = params.keywords
    
        # Make request
        try:
            response = requests.patch(
                api_url,
                json=data,
                headers=auth_manager.get_headers(),
                timeout=config.timeout,
            )
            response.raise_for_status()
    
            result = response.json().get("result", {})
    
            return ArticleResponse(
                success=True,
                message="Article updated successfully",
                article_id=params.article_id,
                article_title=result.get("short_description"),
                workflow_state=result.get("workflow_state"),
            )
    
        except requests.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Failed to update article: {e}")
            return ArticleResponse(
                success=False,
                message=f"Failed to update article: {str(e)}",
            )
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input schema/parameters for the update_article tool.
    class UpdateArticleParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for updating a knowledge article."""
    
        article_id: str = Field(..., description="ID of the article to update")
        title: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated title of the article")
        text: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated main body text for the article. Field supports html formatting and wiki markup based on the article_type. HTML is the default.")
        short_description: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated short description")
        category: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated category for the article")
        keywords: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated keywords for search")
  • Registration of the update_article tool in the central tool_definitions dictionary, mapping name to (handler, schema, return_type, description, serialization).
    "update_article": (
        update_article_tool,
        UpdateArticleParams,
        str,  # Expects JSON string
        "Update an existing knowledge article",
        "json_dict",  # Tool returns Pydantic model
    ),
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. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or response format. 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 and front-loaded with the core action.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response expectations that aren't covered elsewhere.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing knowledge article'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update_* siblings like update_catalog_item or update_incident, which would require 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing article ID), contrast with create_article, or specify scenarios where update is appropriate versus other operations like publish_article.

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