Skip to main content
Glama
ketiil

ServiceNow CMDB MCP Server

by ketiil

get_impact_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess the impact of a Configuration Item by traversing downstream dependencies to identify affected services and applications, providing a categorized summary for change risk evaluation.

Instructions

Produce a summary of services and applications impacted by a given CI.

Traverses downstream relationships (CIs that depend on this CI) up to the specified depth, then categorizes the impacted CIs by class. Focuses on business-relevant classes: business applications, services, and application clusters. Also useful for blast radius analysis, change risk assessment, and understanding service dependencies before scheduled maintenance.

Use this tool for change impact assessment — understanding what would be affected if this CI goes down.

Prerequisites: Use search_cis to find the CI sys_id first.

Performance: Traversal can issue many API calls for deeply connected CIs. Consider using max_depth=2 for initial assessment, then increasing if needed. A hard 60-second timeout applies; on timeout, impact counts reflect only what was traversed before the deadline (timed_out=true).

Examples: get_impact_summary(ci_sys_id="abc123...", max_depth=2) get_impact_summary(ci_sys_id="abc123...", class_filter=["cmdb_ci_server", "cmdb_ci_linux_server"]) get_impact_summary(ci_sys_id="abc123...", max_depth=3)

Args: ci_sys_id: The sys_id of the CI to assess impact for (32-character hex string from search_cis). max_depth: How deep to traverse downstream dependencies (1-5, default 3). class_filter: Optional list of sys_class_name values to include in impact counts and results. Traversal still visits all CIs (to find matching descendants), but only matching classes appear in totals and lists. When None or empty, all classes are included.

Returns: JSON object with "ci" (the source CI), "total_impacted" count, "impacted_by_class" (breakdown by CI class), and "impacted_services" (list of business apps/services found in the tree).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ci_sys_idYes
max_depthNo
class_filterNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses performance characteristics (many API calls, 60s timeout), traversal behavior, and the timed_out flag. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all consistent).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with clear sections, examples, and parameter descriptions. Slightly verbose but every part adds value; could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, performance, timeout, parameter details, return structure. Output schema exists and description lists returned fields, so no gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: ci_sys_id (format, source), max_depth (range, default), class_filter (optional, filtering behavior). Examples illustrate usage.

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 it produces a summary of impacted services and applications for a given CI, with specific use cases like blast radius analysis and change risk assessment. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on impact assessment rather than raw listing or details.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use (change impact assessment, blast radius) and provides prerequisites (use search_cis first). Also gives performance recommendations (start with max_depth=2) and explains timeout behavior.

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/ketiil/mcp-cmdb'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server