servicenow-api

Delete attachment

servicenow_delete_attachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an attachment from a ServiceNow record. Specify the table name, record sys_id, and file name to remove unwanted or outdated files.

Instructions

Invoke the delete_attachment operation.

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_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`sys_id`	No
`file_name`	No
`table_name`	No
`content_type`	No
`table_sys_id`	No
`encryption_context`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no statement about permanence, permissions required, or side effects on parent records — but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence carries no information load, so there is nothing to front-load. Brevity here is a deficiency, not an efficiency.

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?

A destructive, open-world delete with seven undocumented, all-optional-looking parameters, no output schema, and no description of targeting logic. For an irreversible operation this leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call or understand what will be removed.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enum or format hints. The description does not name a single parameter, so an agent has no idea whether sys_id, table_name, table_sys_id, file_name, content_type, encryption_context or data is required to target the attachment, or which combination is valid.

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?

"Invoke the delete_attachment operation" is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without stating the resource being acted on, the target system, or how it differs from siblings like servicenow_delete_table_record or servicenow_get_attachment. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name already says.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. It does not explain when to delete via attachment versus a generic table-record delete, nor what identifiers are needed to locate the attachment.

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

Deploy Server