servicenow-api

Register devops artifact

servicenow_register_devops_artifact

Registers DevOps artifacts into a ServiceNow instance so orchestration tools can track pipeline, project, branch, and stage context.

Instructions

Enables orchestration tools to register artifacts into a ServiceNow instance.

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": {
      "artifacts": "<artifacts>"
    },
    "name": "servicenow_register_devops_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolId`	No
`artifacts`	Yes
`stageName`	No
`branchName`	No
`projectName`	No
`pipelineName`	No
`orchestrationToolId`	No
`taskExecutionNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose the write/non-idempotent/open-world/non-destructive profile. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond 'register'—no mention of what gets created, whether re-registration is safe, or any auth constraints—so it contributes little over structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good for brevity. But for a tool with 8 parameters and non-trivial behavior, this is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema, minimal annotations, and 8 undocumented parameters mean the agent lacks nearly everything needed to call this correctly. The one-line description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (toolId, artifacts, stageName, branchName, projectName, pipelineName, orchestrationToolId, taskExecutionNumber). It does nothing to compensate for the total absence of parameter documentation.

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 ('register') and resource ('artifacts') with a target ('into a ServiceNow instance'), so the action is understandable. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling DevOps/registration tools, so an agent can't distinguish it by description alone.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. Relevant siblings like servicenow_get_devops_orchestration_schema and servicenow_get_devops_plan_schema are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the context for registering artifacts.

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

Deploy Server