Skip to main content
Glama

Get CI Relationships

servicenow_get_ci_relationships
Read-onlyIdempotent

Traverse CMDB CI relationships from a starting item to map upstream dependencies or downstream dependents. Set direction and depth to control traversal scope.

Instructions

Traverse CMDB CI relationships from a starting configuration item. Supports recursive traversal up (dependencies) or down (dependents).

Args:

  • ci_sys_id (string): sys_id of the starting CI

  • direction ('up'|'down'|'both'): 'up' = upstream dependencies, 'down' = downstream dependents, 'both' = full graph (default: 'both')

  • depth (number): How many relationship hops to traverse (1–5, default: 2)

  • response_format: Output format

Returns: Relationship tree with CI names, types, and relationship types. Visits at most 50 unique CIs to prevent runaway traversal.

Examples:

  • What does this server depend on? → ci_sys_id="...", direction="up", depth=2

  • What services use this database? → ci_sys_id="...", direction="down", depth=3

  • Full dependency map → direction="both", depth=2

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoRelationship hops to traverse (1–5, default: 2)
ci_sys_idYessys_id of the starting CI
directionNoTraversal direction: up=dependencies, down=dependents, both=full graphboth
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for human-readable or 'json' for structured datamarkdown
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details like the 50 unique CI visit limit to prevent runaway traversal and the return format. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a clear opening sentence, parameter list, return description, and examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, and every section adds value, though the examples could be seen as slightly redundant with the parameter descriptions.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (relationship tree with CI names, types, and relationship types) and includes important constraints like the 50-CI limit. It covers all parameters and usage patterns, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes all parameters (100% coverage), including enums and defaults. The description repeats these but adds practical examples that illustrate parameter usage. No significant new semantics beyond schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 traverses CMDB CI relationships from a starting configuration item, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on relationship traversal rather than single-record lookup or search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context through examples (e.g., 'What does this server depend on?') and direction/depth semantics, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Still, the context makes appropriate use clear.

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