delete_recordDelete a record from a ServiceNow table by sys_id
Delete a record from a ServiceNow table by sys_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the record to delete | |
| table_name | Yes | The ServiceNow table name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Input schema / properties / confirmRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "description": "Acknowledge this destructive change. Only consulted when the server runs with --write-confirm and the client cannot show a confirmation dialog; ignored otherwise.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}v0.7.0Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Acknowledge this destructive change. Only consulted when the server runs with --write-confirm and the client cannot show a confirmation dialog; ignored otherwise.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, update-set context, or error behavior on a missing sys_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action, resource, and key. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits consequences, confirmation behavior, and prerequisites that would help an agent invoke a delete safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by sys_id' restates what the schema already says and adds no format or constraint detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb (Delete) and resource (a record from a ServiceNow table), with the lookup key (sys_id) specified. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like update_record or clarify scope relative to any bulk/delete alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (permissions, update set requirements), and no statement about whether it removes records singularly only. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.