Skip to main content
Glama
javerthl

ServiceNow MCP Server

by javerthl

update_article

Modify an existing ServiceNow knowledge article by updating its title, content, description, category, or keywords using the article ID.

Instructions

Update an existing knowledge article

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
article_idYesID of the article to update
categoryNoUpdated category for the article
keywordsNoUpdated keywords for search
short_descriptionNoUpdated short description
textNoUpdated main body text for the article. Field supports html formatting and wiki markup based on the article_type. HTML is the default.
titleNoUpdated title of the article

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the logic to update a knowledge article via a PATCH request to the ServiceNow API.
    def update_article(
        config: ServerConfig,
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        params: UpdateArticleParams,
    ) -> ArticleResponse:
        """
        Update an existing knowledge article.
    
        Args:
            config: Server configuration.
            auth_manager: Authentication manager.
            params: Parameters for updating the article.
    
        Returns:
            Response with the updated article details.
        """
        api_url = f"{config.api_url}/table/kb_knowledge/{params.article_id}"
    
        # Build request data
        data = {}
    
        if params.title:
            data["short_description"] = params.title
        if params.text:
            data["text"] = params.text
        if params.short_description:
            data["short_description"] = params.short_description
        if params.category:
            data["kb_category"] = params.category
        if params.keywords:
            data["keywords"] = params.keywords
    
        # Make request
        try:
            response = requests.patch(
                api_url,
                json=data,
                headers=auth_manager.get_headers(),
                timeout=config.timeout,
            )
            response.raise_for_status()
    
            result = response.json().get("result", {})
    
            return ArticleResponse(
                success=True,
                message="Article updated successfully",
                article_id=params.article_id,
                article_title=result.get("short_description"),
                workflow_state=result.get("workflow_state"),
            )
    
        except requests.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Failed to update article: {e}")
            return ArticleResponse(
                success=False,
                message=f"Failed to update article: {str(e)}",
            )
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the input schema/parameters for the update_article tool.
    class UpdateArticleParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for updating a knowledge article."""
    
        article_id: str = Field(..., description="ID of the article to update")
        title: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated title of the article")
        text: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated main body text for the article. Field supports html formatting and wiki markup based on the article_type. HTML is the default.")
        short_description: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated short description")
        category: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated category for the article")
        keywords: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Updated keywords for search")
  • Tool registration entry in get_tool_definitions() mapping the tool name to its handler, schema, return type, description, and serialization method.
    "update_article": (
        update_article_tool,
        UpdateArticleParams,
        str,  # Expects JSON string
        "Update an existing knowledge article",
        "json_dict",  # Tool returns Pydantic model
    ),
  • Re-export of the update_article function for convenient import from the tools package.
    update_article,
  • Import of the update_article handler aliased as update_article_tool for use in tool registration.
    from servicenow_mcp.tools.knowledge_base import (
        update_article as update_article_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 but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether updates are immediately published or require approval, what happens to unchanged fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after update, whether there are side effects, what permissions are required, or how to verify the update succeeded. The combination of mutation operation + zero annotations + no output schema demands more contextual information than provided.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work, though the description could have added context about how parameters interact or partial update behavior.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing knowledge article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_article' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_catalog_item' or 'update_incident' that might have similar patterns.

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 (like needing article_id from get_article or list_articles), doesn't specify when partial updates are allowed versus full replacements, and doesn't differentiate from other content management tools in the sibling list.

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