servicenow-api

Check devops change control

servicenow_check_devops_change_control

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether an orchestration task is under change control, helping you verify ServiceNow DevOps change compliance before proceeding.

Instructions

Checks if the orchestration task is under change control.

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_check_devops_change_control"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No
`params_json`	No		{}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what the check returns, what happens when the task is not under change control, or whether it errors on an invalid/unknown task.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise, and the one clause it does contain introduces terminology ('orchestration task') not echoed in the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, an untyped parameter bag, and no annotations covering return semantics, the description should at minimum explain what a 'check' yields (boolean, state, or error). It does not, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of calling it.

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 two parameters are opaque catch-alls ('params' object, 'params_json' string). The description supplies no information on how to identify the task being checked or what belongs in params_json, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete verb ('Checks') and object ('orchestration task ... under change control'), so the action is graspable. However, the subject shifts from the tool name's 'devops change control' to 'orchestration task' with no explanation of the relationship, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling servicenow_get_devops_change_info.

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 to call this versus servicenow_get_devops_change_info, servicenow_check_devops_step_mapping, or the broader change-request tools. No prerequisites (e.g., change control must be enabled on the instance) 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