servicenow-platform-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

attachment_write

Upload or delete file attachments on ServiceNow records by specifying the parent table, record sys_id, and file details for uploads or attachment sys_id for deletions.

Instructions

Write attachments. action: 'upload' | 'delete'.

Args: action: 'upload' or 'delete'. table: Parent table (upload). table_sys_id: Parent record sys_id (upload). file_name: Attachment file name (upload). content_base64: Base64-encoded file bytes (upload). content_type: MIME type (upload, default 'application/octet-stream'). sys_id: Attachment sys_id (delete).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`table`	No
`action`	Yes
`sys_id`	No
`file_name`	No
`content_type`	No	application/octet-stream
`table_sys_id`	No
`content_base64`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., deletion permanence), permission requirements, or error behavior. It only explains parameter usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like list for arguments. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks higher-level context such as success/failure responses or limitations. With output schema present, return values may be addressed externally.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter's role and conditionally grouping them under upload or delete actions. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Write attachments' and specifies two actions: 'upload' and 'delete'. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'attachment' which likely reads attachments.

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 upload vs delete, nor prerequisites or alternatives. The description only lists parameters without usage context.

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

Install Server