Skip to main content
Glama
aartiq

servicenow-mcp

by aartiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

run_aggregate_query

Count, sum, or average records grouped by any field on ServiceNow tables. Filter results with encoded queries and limit groups for quick stats.

Instructions

Run a grouped aggregate (COUNT, SUM, AVG) query on any table (latest release: /api/now/stats/{table})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax groups (default: 20)
queryNoOptional encoded query filter
tableYesTable to query (e.g., "incident", "task_sla")
group_byYesField to group results by (e.g., "priority", "state", "assignment_group")
aggregateNoAggregate function: COUNT (default), SUM, AVG, MIN, MAX

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint=false annotation because grouped aggregate queries are inherently read-only. It also fails to disclose pagination behavior, side effects, or response format, making the behavioral profile misleading.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but the phrase 'latest release:' is unnecessary and adds noise. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at result format or additional behavior such as grouping semantics or limits. It only provides the endpoint, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds the REST endpoint context but does not enrich understanding of parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 the tool runs grouped aggregate queries (COUNT, SUM, AVG) on any table, which is specific. However, it omits MIN and MAX supported by the schema and does not distinguish from sibling analysis tools like trend_query or aggregate_report.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. It simply says 'on any table' without mentioning limitations, permissions, or cases where other query tools would be more appropriate.

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