Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
servicenow-api

servicenow-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get stats

servicenow_get_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch aggregated statistics from a ServiceNow table using filters, selected fields, and group-by options to analyze records and support reporting.

Instructions

Invoke the get_stats operation.

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": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_get_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
statsNo
fieldsNo
groupbyNo
table_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of aggregation behavior, result shape, or query semantics that would be unique to a stats operation.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence carries no information beyond the tool's own name.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should carry the burden of explaining inputs and aggregation behavior. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly.

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 five parameters (query, stats, fields, groupby, table_name), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The unusual anyOf string/boolean typing on 'stats' and the grouping semantics of 'groupby' are entirely unexplained.

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 get_stats operation" is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without naming a resource, scope, or verb beyond the name itself. It gives no basis for distinguishing this from the many other servicenow_get_* siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance of any kind. An agent has no signal about whether this belongs in a stats/aggregation workflow versus servicenow_get_table, servicenow_api_request, or a table-record tool.

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