Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
servicenow-api

servicenow-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Send email

servicenow_send_email

Send emails through ServiceNow by providing recipients, subject, and body. Automate notifications and communication within ServiceNow workflows.

Instructions

Invoke the send_email operation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "servicenow_send_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
htmlNo
textNo
sys_idNo
subjectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero behavioral context — no mention that this actually delivers mail externally, what content fields are required, or what happens with missing recipients. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity removes information rather than waste. There is no front-loaded purpose statement to build on.

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, externally-facing, non-idempotent email tool with no output schema, the description should explain recipient semantics, content fields, and behavior on send. It supplies none of this, leaving the definition wholly inadequate.

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?

Five parameters (to, html, text, sys_id, subject) all have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not name or explain a single one. Because the schema provides no semantics, the description must compensate and instead contributes nothing, so the baseline-3 rule for high coverage does not apply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a tautology: 'Invoke the send_email operation' restates the tool name and title without stating what is actually done or what resource is affected. It offers no distinction from any sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, no mention of alternatives, and no explanation of when a direct email send is appropriate versus other ServiceNow tools. The agent is given nothing to route with.

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