Skip to main content
Glama

Patch table record

servicenow_patch_table_record

Partially update a ServiceNow record by specifying its table, sys_id, and fields to change using the ServiceNow API. Use it to modify only selected fields without replacing the whole record.

Instructions

Partially update a record in the specified table.

:param table: The name of the table. :type table: str :param table_record_sys_id: The sys_id of the record to be updated. :type table_record_sys_id: str :param data: Dictionary containing the fields to be updated. :type data: dict

:return: Response containing parsed Pydantic model with information about the updated record. :rtype: Response

:raises MissingParameterError: If table, table_record_sys_id, or data is not provided. :raises ParameterError: If JSON serialization fails.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
tableNo
sysparm_viewNo
sysparm_limitNo
sysparm_queryNo
api_parametersNo
sysparm_fieldsNo
sysparm_offsetNo
name_value_pairsNo
sysparm_no_countNo
table_record_sys_idNo
sysparm_display_valueNo
sysparm_query_categoryNo
sysparm_query_no_domainNo
sysparm_exclude_reference_linkNo
sysparm_suppress_pagination_headerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing error behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return type, but says nothing about which fields are merged versus replaced during a partial update.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent block is scoped to its topic. The ':type:' lines duplicate type information already present in the schema and add little, but the overall size is reasonable for a tool of this nature.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits any explanation of the sysparm_* controls, pagination behavior, or how the 'data' dict fields map to ServiceNow columns.

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 16 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents only 3 (table, table_record_sys_id, data). The 13 sysparm_* parameters (view, limit, query, fields, offset, display_value, etc.) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the majority uninterpretable.

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+resource: 'Partially update a record in the specified table.' The word 'partially' implicitly distinguishes it from servicenow_update_table_record (full update), but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 versus update_table_record, add_table_record, or patch_cmdb_instance. No prerequisites or context for choosing a PATCH over a PUT are given; the reader must infer everything from the verb.

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