update_recordUpdate an existing record in a ServiceNow table
Update an existing record in a ServiceNow table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Fields to update as key-value pairs | |
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the record to update | |
| 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: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the 'data' object performs a partial merge or full replacement, nor what permissions are required, which is the key behavioral question for an update tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the resource named immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
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?
Annotations cover the mutability/idempotency profile and the schema fully describes inputs, so the core is intact. The description is still silent on update semantics (merge vs replace) and any side effects, which matters for a destructive write into a full ServiceNow table.
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%, so all three parameters (table_name, sys_id, data) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Update an existing record in a ServiceNow table'), so the agent knows exactly the operation. However it offers no differentiation from the sibling update_ci or create_record/delete_record beyond the word 'record'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like update_ci or create_record, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the table/sys_id targeting model on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.