servicenow-platform-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

record_write

Create, update, or delete ServiceNow records with optional preview before commit. Specify table, sys_id, and field data to perform write operations.

Instructions

Create, update, or delete a record. Defaults to preview mode.

Supply all field values, including complete script or markup strings, in data. Omitted fields stay unchanged on update. Dictionary metadata identifies supplied XML fields, including inherited fields; malformed XML is rejected before preview creation or mutation. Creates also check inherited mandatory fields, with child declarations taking precedence. Metadata request errors block writes.

Args: action: 'create' | 'update' | 'delete'. table: Target table. Required. sys_id: Required for 'update' and 'delete'. data: JSON string mapping field names to values, including any script fields. Required for 'create' and 'update'. Maximum 256 KiB of UTF-8 JSON, including escaping and field names. preview: When True (default) returns a preview_token; caller invokes record_apply to commit. When False, write commits immediately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`table`	No
`action`	Yes
`sys_id`	No
`preview`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0Sep 10, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / script_field

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "title": "Script Field",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / script_path

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "title": "Script Path",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedv0.10.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses preview-mode default, commit behavior, update semantics for omitted fields, XML validation, inherited-field checks, metadata error blocking, and size limits. This is unusually transparent for a mutation tool.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value. It front-loads the core purpose and default behavior, then uses a structured Args list to map details to parameters. The format is scannable and free of filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a five-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers action constraints, required fields, data format, size limits, preview flow, XML behavior, and error conditions. An output schema exists, so not describing the full return shape is acceptable. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage by documenting every parameter: action enum values, table and sys_id requirements, data format and maximum size, and preview semantics. It adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, including required conditions per action.

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 explicitly states the tool creates, updates, or deletes a record, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It differentiates from siblings like record_apply (which commits previews), record_read (which reads), and attachment_write (which writes attachments). The purpose is immediately understandable and distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly defines the actions this tool supports and explains when the preview mode requires calling record_apply to commit. It does not explicitly contrast with record_read or other sibling write tools, but the action-specific guidance and preview/commit flow provide solid contextual direction. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Install Server