Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

by mdasiff
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Classify Incident

classify_incident

Analyze a free-text issue to assign impact, urgency, and priority (P1-P4) via a scope-based rule engine.

Instructions

Analyze a free-text issue and determine its impact, urgency and priority (P1–P4) using a documented scope-based rule engine. Returns {impact, urgency, priority, reason}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue": "<issue>"
    },
    "name": "classify_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesFree-text description of the issue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a 'documented scope-based rule engine,' hinting at deterministic behavior, but does not clarify edge cases, idempotency, or what happens if the issue is ambiguous. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: first for purpose and method, second for outputs. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return fields. It mentions the output shape (impact, urgency, priority, reason). No critical gaps, though output field formats are not detailed.

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% (the single 'issue' parameter is described). The description adds 'free-text' which matches the schema, but does not provide additional semantic or format details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 analyzes a free-text issue and determines impact, urgency, and priority (P1–P4), using a documented rule engine. The verb 'analyze' and specific output fields distinguish it from siblings like assign_incident or close_incident.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when a free-text issue needs classification but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like suggest_assignment_group, which also classifies. No exclusions or when-not-to scenarios are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools