servicenow-api

Get devops orchestration schema

servicenow_get_devops_orchestration_schema

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the schema object for a specified DevOps orchestration resource to validate fields and structure before building or updating ServiceNow integrations.

Instructions

Returns the schema object for a specified orchestration resource.

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": {
      "resource": "<resource>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_get_devops_orchestration_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolId`	No
`resource`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no mention of what the returned schema contains, valid resource values, or any auth/scope requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail rather than a virtue of tight writing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the shape or purpose of the returned schema object; instead it merely restates the tool name. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no sibling differentiation, the definition is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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% for two parameters, including the required 'resource' and the optional 'toolId'. The description does not explain what a 'resource' identifier looks like or what 'toolId' is used for, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (schema object for a specified orchestration resource), which is clear in isolation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings get_devops_code_schema and get_devops_plan_schema, leaving the agent to infer the 'orchestration' vs 'code' vs 'plan' distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling schema tools (code/plan schemas), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent receives no routing signal beyond the name.

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

Deploy Server