Skip to main content
Glama

Get change request tasks

servicenow_get_change_request_tasks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve tasks associated with a specific ServiceNow change request by sys ID, with filtering, sorting, and text search to inspect related work items.

Instructions

Retrieve tasks associated with a specific change request.

:param change_request_sys_id: Sys ID of the change request. :type change_request_sys_id: str or None :param order: Ordering parameter for sorting results. :type order: str or None :param name_value_pairs: Additional name-value pairs for filtering. :type name_value_pairs: str or None :param sysparm_query: Query parameter for filtering results. :type sysparm_query: str or None :param text_search: Text search parameter for searching results. :type text_search: str or None

:return: Response containing list of parsed Pydantic models with information about change request tasks. :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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
stateNo
change_typeNo
task_sys_idNo
text_searchNo
model_sys_idNo
sysparm_limitNo
sysparm_queryNo
worker_sys_idNo
api_parametersNo
cmdb_ci_sys_idNo
sysparm_offsetNo
cmdb_ci_sys_idsNo
response_lengthNo
template_sys_idNo
association_typeNo
name_value_pairsNo
change_model_sys_idNo
change_request_sys_idNo
refresh_impacted_servicesNo
change_request_task_sys_idNo
standard_change_template_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required-argument exception, the two ParameterError failure modes, and the return shape ('list of parsed Pydantic models'). It says nothing about pagination behavior, even though sysparm_limit, sysparm_offset and response_length exist in the schema.

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 statement is front-loaded and the overall length is modest for a 22-parameter tool. However the Sphinx-style ':type:' lines largely restate 'str or None' without adding information, and at least one documented parameter ('order') is absent from the schema, which is noise rather than signal.

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 tool with 22 parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most of the interface unexplained. It does state the return type and error conditions, but an agent cannot determine what most of the filter parameters do or how to combine them, which is a material gap for a tool this complex.

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 burden and largely fails it: only 5 of 22 parameters are mentioned, with types but no meaning for what a 'name_value_pairs' string or a 'sysparm_query' should look like. Worse, it documents an 'order' parameter that does not appear in the schema, while 17 real parameters (worker_sys_id, cmdb_ci_sys_id, response_length, etc.) go entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('tasks associated with a specific change request'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings that operate on the same resource set (create_change_request_task, update_change_request_task, get_change_request), nor explain why one would fetch tasks rather than the parent change request.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many change-request siblings. The only usage signal is the ':raises MissingParameterError' note, which indirectly implies change_request_sys_id is effectively required despite the schema marking it optional.

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