Skip to main content
Glama

Search Code Artifacts

servicenow_search_artifacts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search ServiceNow developer artifacts—business rules, script includes, client scripts, UI actions, and REST operations—by name or script content to locate relevant code.

Instructions

Search across ServiceNow developer artifacts — business rules, script includes, client scripts, UI actions, and scripted REST operations — by name or script content.

Args:

  • search_term (string): Text to search in artifact names and scripts

  • artifact_types (array): Which artifact types to search. Default: all.

    • "business_rule" — sys_business_rule

    • "script_include" — sys_script_include

    • "client_script" — sys_script_client

    • "ui_action" — sys_ui_action

    • "rest_operation" — sys_ws_operation (Scripted REST)

  • table_name (string): Filter by the table the artifact applies to (e.g., 'incident')

  • active_only (boolean): Only return active artifacts (default: true)

  • limit (number): Max results per artifact type (default 10)

  • response_format: Output format

Returns: Matching artifacts with name, type, table, and script preview

Examples:

  • Find all incident business rules → artifact_types=["business_rule"], table_name="incident"

  • Search for a function → search_term="calculatePriority"

  • Find OAuth script includes → search_term="oauth", artifact_types=["script_include"]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results per artifact type
table_nameNoFilter by the table the artifact targets (e.g., 'incident')
active_onlyNoOnly return active artifacts (default: true)
search_termNoText to search in names and script content
artifact_typesNoArtifact types to search
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 (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context such as default active-only filtering, per-type limits, and returning script previews, which 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-organized with clear sections (summary, Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loaded with a strong first sentence. While it repeats some schema details, the examples and artifact type table justify the length. It stays focused and scannable.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format ('name, type, table, and script preview'), provides usage examples, and explains all major options. It could mention pagination or interaction between filters, but completeness is adequate for this search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The description's Args section largely repeats schema information but adds the mapping of artifact type enums to actual table names (e.g., 'business_rule' → sys_business_rule) and the response_format explanation. This is marginal value, so baseline 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 searches across specific ServiceNow developer artifacts (business rules, script includes, client scripts, UI actions, rest operations) by name or script content. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_ci or search_knowledge.

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 context on when to use the tool through examples (e.g., 'Find all incident business rules') and the artifact type list. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the artifact scope is well-defined, making it obvious when this tool is appropriate.

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