Skip to main content
Glama
javerthl

ServiceNow MCP Server

by javerthl

reject_change

Reject a ServiceNow change request by providing the change ID and rejection reason. This action prevents the change from proceeding and documents the rationale for rejection.

Instructions

Reject a change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approver_idNoID of the approver
change_idYesChange request ID or sys_id
rejection_reasonYesReason for rejection

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the reject_change tool logic. It validates parameters, retrieves the approval record, updates it to rejected state with comments, and cancels the change request with 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 change_id and rejection_reason, 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")
  • Registration of the reject_change tool in the central tool definitions dictionary, mapping name to (handler, params model, return type, description, serialization). This is used by the MCP server.
    "reject_change": (
        reject_change_tool,
        RejectChangeParams,
        str,
        "Reject a change request",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
  • Export of the reject_change function in the tools package __all__, making it available for import.
    "reject_change",
  • Import alias for the reject_change handler used in tool_utils registration.
    reject_change as reject_change_tool,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Reject' implies a mutation that alters the state of a change request, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, is irreversible, triggers notifications, or affects related workflows. It lacks critical context for a destructive operation in a change management system.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity of a mutation tool in a change management context with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., status change, notifications), error conditions, or system behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'change_id' as 'Change request ID or sys_id', 'rejection_reason' as 'Reason for rejection'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Reject a change request' clearly states the verb ('reject') and resource ('change request'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'approve_change' or 'submit_change_for_approval' beyond the obvious semantic difference, and it lacks specificity about what kind of change request system this operates within.

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., that a change request must be in a pending state), contrast with 'approve_change', or indicate when rejection is appropriate versus other actions like updating or commenting. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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