Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
servicenow-api

servicenow-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Collect graph for roots

servicenow_collect_graph_for_roots

Collects ServiceNow CMDB dependency graphs for given root CI sys_ids to trace relationships up to a configurable depth.

Instructions

Invoke the collect_graph_for_roots 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": {
      "root_sys_ids": "<root_sys_ids>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_collect_graph_for_roots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNo
root_sys_idsYes
initial_metadataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context such as permissions required, pagination, cost, or what the collection writes/returns. With an open-world, non-read-only operation, the absence of any disclosure is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but it is vacuous rather than concise — the brevity comes from under-specification, not from front-loading useful content. No wasted words, but no earned ones either.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (0% documented), a nested object, no output schema, and non-read-only open-world annotations, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% for 3 parameters, including a nested-object parameter (initial_metadata) and a required array (root_sys_ids). The description mentions no parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the entirely undocumented schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a tautology that restates the tool name and title ('Invoke the collect_graph_for_roots operation') without stating the resource, scope, or what a 'graph for roots' actually is. An agent learns nothing about the verb's effect beyond the name itself, and there is no differentiation from siblings like servicenow_get_cmdb or servicenow_full_scan.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description provides no condition, prerequisite, or context that would help an agent decide between this and the many CMDB/scan-related siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools