Skip to main content
Glama

Get Table Schema

servicenow_get_table_schema
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get field definitions for any ServiceNow table, including names, types, labels, mandatory flags, and reference targets. Filter by field type or include inherited fields.

Instructions

Inspect the field definitions (schema) of any ServiceNow table.

Returns field names, types, labels, mandatory flags, max lengths, and reference targets from sys_dictionary.

Args:

  • table (string): Table to introspect (e.g., incident, change_request, cmdb_ci_server)

  • include_inherited (boolean): Include fields inherited from parent tables (default: false — own fields only)

  • filter_type (string): Filter by field type (e.g., 'string', 'integer', 'reference', 'boolean')

  • response_format: Output format

Returns: Field definitions with name, label, type, mandatory, max_length, and reference table (for reference fields)

Examples:

  • Explore incident fields → table="incident"

  • Find all reference fields on change_request → table="change_request", filter_type="reference"

  • Inspect a custom table → table="x_company_myapp_orders"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesServiceNow table name (e.g., incident, change_request, sys_user)
filter_typeNoFilter by field type (e.g., 'string', 'reference', 'integer', 'boolean')
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for human-readable or 'json' for structured datamarkdown
include_inheritedNoInclude parent-inherited fields (default: false)
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by noting the data comes from sys_dictionary and detailing the returned fields, but it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., nonexistent table) or permissions, which would add further value beyond the annotations.

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 intro, Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to scan. The Args block somewhat duplicates schema descriptions, but the examples and return-value summary earn their place, resulting in a minor deduction for redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains return fields and provides practical examples. It covers the essential context for a schema-introspection tool, though it could mention behavior for invalid table names or large result sets. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples for table and filter_type, and clarifies include_inherited as 'own fields only,' which goes slightly beyond the schema's description. This added nuance justifies a 4.

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 'Inspects the field definitions (schema) of any ServiceNow table,' naming a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling record/query tools by focusing on schema introspection and explicitly mentions the sys_dictionary source.

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?

The description provides clear use cases through examples ('Explore incident fields,' 'Find all reference fields on change_request,' 'Inspect a custom table'), making the intended context evident. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the examples and 'any table' scope offer adequate guidance.

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