Skip to main content
Glama

Get standard change request templates

servicenow_get_standard_change_request_templates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve standard change request templates with filtering, sorting, and text search to find the right template for a change request.

Instructions

Retrieve standard change request templates based on specified parameters.

: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 standard change request templates. :rtype: Response

: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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (parsed Pydantic model list) and raises ParameterError on invalid parameters or JSON failures, which is useful. However, it omits pagination behavior despite sysparm_limit/sysparm_offset parameters being present.

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?

The description is a raw docstring with duplicated :param:/:type: lines and a full :return:/:raises: block. Most content restates parameter names and Python types rather than adding selection value, so it is padded without being informative.

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 22-parameter tool with no output schema and no required params, the description covers only a fraction of the parameters and gives no pagination or result-shape guidance. An agent cannot confidently construct the many filter/identity parameters (task_sys_id, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, association_type, etc.) from this.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents only sysparm_query, text_search, and name_value_pairs of the 22 schema parameters (and even cites an 'order' param that does not exist in the schema). The documented ones get only a one-line type restatement, no syntax or format semantics for sysparm_query or name_value_pairs.

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 and resource: retrieving standard change request templates. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling servicenow_get_standard_change_request_template, leaving the list-vs-single distinction unresolved.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular template getter or the model/template siblings. The only context is a generic 'based on specified parameters', which offers nothing actionable about scenario selection.

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