Skip to main content
Glama

create_security_incident

Create a Security Operations incident in ServiceNow with category, severity, and assignment group to streamline SOC response and tracking.

Instructions

Create a Security Operations incident (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYesIncident category (e.g., "Malware", "Phishing", "Data Breach", "Unauthorized Access")
severityNo1=High, 2=Medium, 3=Low
descriptionNoDetailed description of the security incident
subcategoryNoIncident subcategory
affected_cisNoList of affected CI sys_ids
assignment_groupNoSOC team or assignment group
short_descriptionYesBrief description of the security event
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or return value expectations, so the added transparency is limited.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately communicates the core action and includes the key prerequisite.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks context on what constitutes a security incident, required fields, or potential implications. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is helpful but insufficient for a complete picture.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive text for all seven parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a Security Operations incident', specifying the action and resource. The qualifier 'Security Operations' differentiates it from generic incident creation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_incident or update_security_incident. The only additional information is the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is a prerequisite, not 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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aartiq/servicenow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server