servicenow-api

Api request

servicenow_api_request

Execute ServiceNow REST API calls with method, endpoint, and optional payload to manage incidents, CMDB, changes, and other records.

Instructions

Invoke the api_request operation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_api_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`json`	No
`method`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establishes a basic safety profile. However, the description adds nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or response behavior, leaving most behavioral expectations to inference.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is extremely short but fails to earn its place because it is tautological and under-specified. An appropriately sized description for a 4-parameter generic API tool would include at least a brief explanation of the operation and its inputs.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits everything an agent would need to call the tool correctly, such as endpoint format, method semantics, and payload expectations.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the method, endpoint, data, or json parameters. It does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, so an agent cannot infer valid values or formats.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'Invoke the api_request operation' merely restates the tool name and title; it gives no specific verb-resource distinction and does not differentiate from siblings like servicenow_batch_request. It provides no information about what API or resource is being requested.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this generic API request versus the many specific ServiceNow tools (e.g., servicenow_get_incident, servicenow_create_change_request) or servicenow_batch_request. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server