Skip to main content
Glama
echelon-ai-labs

ServiceNow MCP Server

reject_change

Reject a ServiceNow change request by providing the change ID and rejection reason. Ensures proper documentation and approval workflow compliance.

Instructions

Reject a change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that implements the reject_change tool logic. It validates input parameters using RejectChangeParams, queries for the approval record associated with the change request, updates the approval state to 'rejected' with the rejection reason, and updates the change request state to 'canceled' adding work notes.
    def reject_change(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Reject a change request in ServiceNow.
    
        Args:
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            server_config: The server configuration.
            params: The parameters for rejecting a change request.
    
        Returns:
            The result of the rejection.
        """
        # Unwrap and validate parameters
        result = _unwrap_and_validate_params(
            params, 
            RejectChangeParams,
            required_fields=["change_id", "rejection_reason"]
        )
        
        if not result["success"]:
            return result
        
        validated_params = result["params"]
        
        # Get the instance URL
        instance_url = _get_instance_url(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not instance_url:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find instance_url in either server_config or auth_manager",
            }
        
        # Get the headers
        headers = _get_headers(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not headers:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find get_headers method in either auth_manager or server_config",
            }
        
        # First, find the approval record
        approval_query_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver"
        
        query_params = {
            "sysparm_query": f"document_id={validated_params.change_id}",
            "sysparm_limit": 1,
        }
        
        try:
            approval_response = requests.get(approval_query_url, headers=headers, params=query_params)
            approval_response.raise_for_status()
            
            approval_result = approval_response.json()
            
            if not approval_result.get("result") or len(approval_result["result"]) == 0:
                return {
                    "success": False,
                    "message": "No approval record found for this change request",
                }
            
            approval_id = approval_result["result"][0]["sys_id"]
            
            # Now, update the approval record to rejected
            approval_update_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver/{approval_id}"
            headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"
            
            approval_data = {
                "state": "rejected",
                "comments": validated_params.rejection_reason,
            }
            
            approval_update_response = requests.patch(approval_update_url, json=approval_data, headers=headers)
            approval_update_response.raise_for_status()
            
            # Finally, update the change request state to "canceled"
            change_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_request/{validated_params.change_id}"
            
            change_data = {
                "state": "canceled",  # This may vary depending on ServiceNow configuration
                "work_notes": f"Change request rejected: {validated_params.rejection_reason}",
            }
            
            change_response = requests.patch(change_url, json=change_data, headers=headers)
            change_response.raise_for_status()
            
            return {
                "success": True,
                "message": "Change request rejected successfully",
            }
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error rejecting change: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error rejecting change: {str(e)}",
            } 
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input schema for the reject_change tool, including required fields change_id and rejection_reason, and optional approver_id.
    class RejectChangeParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for rejecting a change request."""
    
        change_id: str = Field(..., description="Change request ID or sys_id")
        approver_id: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="ID of the approver")
        rejection_reason: str = Field(..., description="Reason for rejection")
  • Tool registration in the get_tool_definitions dictionary, mapping 'reject_change' to its handler (reject_change_tool alias), schema (RejectChangeParams), return type (str), description, and serialization method ('str').
    "reject_change": (
        reject_change_tool,
        RejectChangeParams,
        str,
        "Reject a change request",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
  • Import and alias of the reject_change handler function as reject_change_tool for use in tool registration.
        reject_change as reject_change_tool,
    )
  • Re-export of reject_change function from change_tools.py in the tools package __init__ for convenient access.
    reject_change,
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a destructive/mutative action, what permissions are required, how it affects the change request lifecycle, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely alters system state, this lack of transparency is critical.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it achieves maximum conciseness for its limited content.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (state-changing operation in a change management context), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in workflows, error conditions, or system impact, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions no parameters, while the schema has 3 parameters (change_id, rejection_reason, approver_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The schema provides basic titles but no contextual meaning. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters represent or how they're used, leaving semantics largely undocumented.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Reject a change request' restates the tool name 'reject_change' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'reject' and resource 'change request', but lacks any detail about what rejecting entails or how it differs from alternatives like 'approve_change'. This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'approve_change', but the description doesn't mention it or explain the decision context (e.g., after review, based on criteria). There's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent with no 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

Related 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/echelon-ai-labs/servicenow-mcp'

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