Skip to main content
Glama

Create Change Request

servicenow_create_change

Create a new ServiceNow change request with details like type, priority, and implementation plan.

Instructions

Create a new ServiceNow change request.

Args:

  • short_description (string): Brief title (required)

  • type (string): 'standard', 'normal', or 'emergency'

  • description (string): Detailed description/justification

  • implementation_plan (string): Steps to implement the change

  • backout_plan (string): Rollback procedure if change fails

  • test_plan (string): Testing steps

  • start_date (string): Planned start (ISO 8601 or ServiceNow format: '2024-06-01 09:00:00')

  • end_date (string): Planned end

  • assignment_group (string): sys_id of assignment group

  • assigned_to (string): sys_id of assignee

  • priority (number): 1–5

  • risk (number): 1=High, 2=Moderate, 3=Low

  • additional_fields (object): Any additional field-value pairs

Returns: Created change request with number and sys_id

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
riskNoRisk level (1=High, 2=Moderate, 3=Low, 4=Very High)
typeNoChange typenormal
end_dateNoPlanned end date
priorityNoPriority (1=Critical–5=Planning)
test_planNoTesting procedure
start_dateNoPlanned start date (e.g., '2024-06-01 09:00:00')
assigned_toNoAssignee sys_id
descriptionNoDetailed description
backout_planNoRollback/backout procedure
justificationNoBusiness justification
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for human-readable or 'json' for structured datamarkdown
assignment_groupNoAssignment group sys_id
additional_fieldsNoAdditional field-value pairs
short_descriptionYesChange request title
implementation_planNoImplementation steps
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the return value (number and sys_id) which is helpful beyond the annotations. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false but does not disclose potential side effects like approval workflows, validation failures, or required permissions. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The description is well-structured with the purpose first, then a list of args, then return info. It is somewhat verbose because the args list largely duplicates schema property descriptions, but given the high parameter count, it remains readable and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 15-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers most parameters and includes the return value. However, it omits a couple of schema fields and does not clarify any type-specific requirements (e.g., emergency change validation). The tool is complex, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description adds useful details beyond the schema, such as date format example and risk mapping. However, the risk mapping is incomplete (schema includes a 4th level, 'Very High') and two schema parameters (justification, response_format) are omitted. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal extra value.

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 states 'Create a new ServiceNow change request' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_record or create_incident. The title and tool name reinforce this.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_record or update_change. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context like change management processes.

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/kylburns89/servicenow-mcp-server'

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