Skip to main content
Glama
javerthl

ServiceNow MCP Server

by javerthl

delete_script_include

Remove a script include from a ServiceNow instance by providing its ID or name to manage server-side logic and maintain system integrity.

Instructions

Delete a script include in ServiceNow

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
script_include_idYesScript include ID or name

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the delete_script_include tool handler. Retrieves the script include by ID, then sends a DELETE request to the ServiceNow API to remove it.
    def delete_script_include(
        config: ServerConfig,
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        params: DeleteScriptIncludeParams,
    ) -> ScriptIncludeResponse:
        """Delete a script include from ServiceNow.
        
        Args:
            config: The server configuration.
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            params: The parameters for the request.
            
        Returns:
            A response indicating the result of the operation.
        """
        # First, get the script include to delete
        get_params = GetScriptIncludeParams(script_include_id=params.script_include_id)
        get_result = get_script_include(config, auth_manager, get_params)
        
        if not get_result["success"]:
            return ScriptIncludeResponse(
                success=False,
                message=get_result["message"],
            )
            
        script_include = get_result["script_include"]
        sys_id = script_include["sys_id"]
        name = script_include["name"]
        
        # Build the URL
        url = f"{config.instance_url}/api/now/table/sys_script_include/{sys_id}"
        
        # Make the request
        headers = auth_manager.get_headers()
        
        try:
            response = requests.delete(
                url,
                headers=headers,
                timeout=30,
            )
            response.raise_for_status()
            
            return ScriptIncludeResponse(
                success=True,
                message=f"Deleted script include: {name}",
                script_include_id=sys_id,
                script_include_name=name,
            )
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error deleting script include: {e}")
            return ScriptIncludeResponse(
                success=False,
                message=f"Error deleting script include: {str(e)}",
            ) 
  • Pydantic schema for the input parameters of the delete_script_include tool, requiring script_include_id.
    class DeleteScriptIncludeParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for deleting a script include."""
        
        script_include_id: str = Field(..., description="Script include ID or name")
  • Registration of the delete_script_include tool in the tool_definitions dictionary, mapping name to function, params schema, description, etc.
    "delete_script_include": (
        delete_script_include_tool,
        DeleteScriptIncludeParams,
        str,  # Expects JSON string
        "Delete a script include in ServiceNow",
        "json_dict",  # Tool returns Pydantic model
    ),
  • Import of delete_script_include function into tools package __init__ for exposure.
    from servicenow_mcp.tools.script_include_tools import (
        create_script_include,
        delete_script_include,
        get_script_include,
        list_script_includes,
        update_script_include,
    )
  • Inclusion of delete_script_include in __all__ list for public export.
    "delete_script_include",
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, confirmation prompts, error handling, or side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, adhering to best practices for tool descriptions.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or integration with sibling tools like 'list_script_includes' or 'get_script_include'. For a deletion tool in a complex system like ServiceNow, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'script_include_id' documented as 'Script include ID or name'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a script include in ServiceNow'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_story_dependency' or 'delete_workflow_activity', but the specificity of 'script include' provides inherent distinction. No tautology or misleading elements are present.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_script_include' for verification or 'create_script_include' for creation, nor does it mention permissions or typical workflows. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Delete'.

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/javerthl/servicenow-mcp'

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