servicenow-api

Delete ci lifecycle action

servicenow_delete_ci_lifecycle_action

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a CI lifecycle action for one or more configuration items in ServiceNow. Provide the action name and requestor ID to remove the assigned action.

Instructions

Removes a configuration item (CI) action for a list of CIs.

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": {
      "actionName": "<actionName>",
      "requestorId": "<requestorId>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_delete_ci_lifecycle_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sysIds`	No
`opsLabel`	No
`leaseTime`	No
`actionName`	Yes
`requestorId`	Yes
`oldOpsLabels`	No
`oldActionNames`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds only that the removal applies to CI lifecycle actions for a list of CIs, without detailing permissions, side effects, or what is actually destroyed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, for a destructive tool with seven parameters, such extreme brevity leaves important structure unaddressed.

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?

Given a destructive batch operation with seven parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter meaning, usage constraints, and any behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description does not explain any parameter. Required fields like actionName and requestorId, as well as optional fields like sysIds and leaseTime, receive no semantic guidance.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('CI action') and indicates batch scope ('for a list of CIs'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like servicenow_add_ci_lifecycle_action, but the delete semantics are clear.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not mention sibling lifecycle tools such as add_ci_lifecycle_action or the related check_* tools.

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

Deploy Server