servicenow-api

Calculate standard change request risk

servicenow_calculate_standard_change_request_risk

Calculate and update the risk for a standard ServiceNow change request using its Sys ID, returning the computed risk details.

Instructions

Calculate and update the risk of a standard change request.

:param change_request_sys_id: Sys ID of the standard change request. :type change_request_sys_id: str or None

:return: Response containing parsed Pydantic model with information about the calculated risk. :rtype: Response

:raises MissingParameterError: If change_request_sys_id is not provided. :raises ParameterError: If invalid parameters or responses are encountered. :raises ParameterError: If JSON deserialization fails.

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_calculate_standard_change_request_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`state`	No
`change_type`	No
`task_sys_id`	No
`text_search`	No
`model_sys_id`	No
`sysparm_limit`	No
`sysparm_query`	No
`worker_sys_id`	No
`api_parameters`	No
`cmdb_ci_sys_id`	No
`sysparm_offset`	No
`cmdb_ci_sys_ids`	No
`response_length`	No
`template_sys_id`	No
`association_type`	No
`name_value_pairs`	No
`change_model_sys_id`	No
`change_request_sys_id`	No
`refresh_impacted_services`	No
`change_request_task_sys_id`	No
`standard_change_template_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation semantics are partly covered externally; the description's 'calculate and update' is consistent with those. It adds error behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError on bad params or JSON) that annotations do not cover, but never explains what the update actually changes on the record or whether it is reversible.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, but the body is a Sphinx docstring dump whose :param:/:type:/:rtype: markup conveys very little information for its length. It is not bloated, yet the formatting is low-density relative to the payload.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin: it explains one parameter, gives a generic 'parsed Pydantic model' return note, and says nothing about how the risk is computed, what fields are updated, or what permissions are required.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 22 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and documents only change_request_sys_id, and even that conflicts with the schema's optional/nullable definition. The remaining 21 parameters (data, state, change_type, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, etc.) are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb pair (calculate and update) and a specific resource (standard change request risk), so the agent knows both the computation and the mutation involved. It does not, however, differentiate itself from neighbors like servicenow_update_change_request, servicenow_refresh_change_request_impacted_services, or servicenow_get_standard_change_request_model.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over the many change-request siblings, nor any prerequisites or context. The only usage hint is an indirect one via ':raises MissingParameterError', which implies change_request_sys_id is needed, but the schema marks it optional with a null default, so even that signal is unreliable.

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

Deploy Server