Skip to main content
Glama
javerthl

ServiceNow MCP Server

by javerthl

delete_workflow_activity

Remove a specific activity from a ServiceNow workflow by providing its activity ID to manage workflow configurations and automation processes.

Instructions

Delete an activity from a workflow

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activity_idYesActivity ID or sys_id

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the delete_workflow_activity tool. It unwraps parameters, validates the activity_id, constructs the ServiceNow API DELETE URL for wf_activity table, sends the request, and returns success or error message.
    def delete_workflow_activity(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Delete an activity from a workflow.
        
        Args:
            auth_manager: Authentication manager
            server_config: Server configuration
            params: Parameters for deleting a workflow activity
            
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: Result of the deletion operation
        """
        # Unwrap parameters if needed
        params = _unwrap_params(params, DeleteWorkflowActivityParams)
        
        # Get the correct auth_manager and server_config
        try:
            auth_manager, server_config = _get_auth_and_config(auth_manager, server_config)
        except ValueError as e:
            logger.error(f"Error getting auth and config: {e}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
        
        activity_id = params.get("activity_id")
        if not activity_id:
            return {"error": "Activity ID is required"}
        
        # Make the API request
        try:
            headers = auth_manager.get_headers()
            url = f"{server_config.instance_url}/api/now/table/wf_activity/{activity_id}"
            
            response = requests.delete(url, headers=headers)
            response.raise_for_status()
            
            return {
                "message": "Activity deleted successfully",
                "activity_id": activity_id,
            }
        except requests.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error deleting workflow activity: {e}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Unexpected error deleting workflow activity: {e}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input schema for the delete_workflow_activity tool, requiring an 'activity_id' field.
    class DeleteWorkflowActivityParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for deleting a workflow activity."""
        
        activity_id: str = Field(..., description="Activity ID or sys_id")
  • Registration of the 'delete_workflow_activity' tool in the central get_tool_definitions() dictionary, mapping name to (handler function alias, params schema, return type, description, serialization method).
    "delete_workflow_activity": (
        delete_workflow_activity_tool,
        DeleteWorkflowActivityParams,
        str,
        "Delete an activity from a workflow",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent workflows, or returns confirmation data. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap 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 immediately conveys the core action and target, earning full marks for efficiency and clarity in structure.

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 critical context like deletion permanence, error conditions, or what happens to workflow integrity, leaving the agent with incomplete information for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'activity_id' clearly documented as 'Activity ID or sys_id'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 the target resource ('an activity from a workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_workflow_activity' or 'reorder_workflow_activities' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'deactivate_workflow' or 'delete_script_include'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the workflow must be inactive), consequences (e.g., if deletion is permanent), or suggest other tools for related operations like viewing activities with 'get_workflow_activities'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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