ServiceNow MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to ServiceNow MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceEnables natural language control of ServiceNow from AI clients like Claude and Cursor. Provides 400+ tools for incidents, changes, CMDB, and scripts via MCP protocol.100286 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that gives Claude Code tools to read, write, and configure a ServiceNow instance, enabling hands-off flow design and management via basic auth.73 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA local gateway that exposes ServiceNow REST APIs as MCP tools, enabling natural language interaction with ServiceNow incidents, changes, CMDB, and scripts via Claude and other MCP clients.-
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude to interact with ServiceNow instances through comprehensive API integration. Supports incident management, service catalog operations, change requests, knowledge base management, user administration, and agile project management with multiple authentication methods.82MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI to interact with ServiceNow instances via MCP, providing 400+ tools across all modules for automation, development, and management.500805 npm17Elastic 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude to interact with ServiceNow instances through the ServiceNow API, allowing data retrieval, record management, and workflow execution. Supports multiple authentication methods and tool packaging for role-based access control.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 19 tools
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear separation between generic record operations and specialized update set/CI operations. Some potential overlap exists (e.g., list_records vs list_update_set_changes) but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create, set, list, get, update, delete, aggregate). Even complex nouns like update_set_changes maintain the pattern. No mixed conventions.
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but justified by covering generic record CRUD, update set lifecycle, CI management, and system utilities. Each tool serves a clear purpose, though a few could be merged without loss.
The service covers core CRUD for records, update sets, and CIs, plus schema, user, and property access. Minor gaps include lack of update set deletion and no mutation for CI relationships, but primary workflows are well supported.