Skip to main content
Glama
jschuller

ServiceNow MCP Server

by jschuller
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List Records

list_records
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve records from a ServiceNow table with optional filters, field selection, sorting, and pagination controls.

Instructions

List records from any ServiceNow table with optional filtering, field selection, and pagination

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records to return
queryNoEncoded query string (e.g., 'active=true^priority=1')
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to return
offsetNoNumber of records to skip
order_byNoField to order results by (prefix with '-' for descending)
table_nameYesThe ServiceNow table name (e.g., 'incident', 'sys_user', 'cmdb_ci')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description aligns with this. It does not add extra context about authentication, rate limits, or other side effects, but no contradictions exist.

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 sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and key capabilities without unnecessary wording or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple shape of the tool, the fully described parameters, and the read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. No output schema is present, but 'List records' sufficiently implies the return style.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds a high-level summary of filtering, field selection, and pagination but does not provide additional detail beyond the parameter descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists records from any ServiceNow table and mentions optional filtering, field selection, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record, create_record, list_ci, and list_update_sets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys the tool's capabilities but does not explicitly explain when to use it versus sibling list tools or get_record. There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the general 'any ServiceNow table' phrasing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools