ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

Create Incident

create_incident

Create a new ServiceNow incident with a required short description and optional caller, assignment group, impact, and urgency. Returns incident number and sysId.

Instructions

Create a new ServiceNow incident. Requires shortDescription; description, caller, assignment group, impact and urgency are optional. Returns the new incident number and sysId.

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": {
      "shortDescription": "<shortDescription>"
    },
    "name": "create_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`shortDescription`	Yes
`description`	No
`callerId`	No	caller user_name or sys_id
`assignmentGroup`	No	Assignment group name
`impact`	No
`urgency`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creation, return values, and required/optional fields, but lacks disclosure of side effects, authorization needs, or potential error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero wasted words, immediately stating the purpose and key details. Well front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and return values. It could mention error handling or response structure but is adequate for a creation tool.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning by listing optional parameters and clarifying that callerId can be a user_name or sys_id, and impact/urgency are optional, going beyond the schema.

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 creates a new ServiceNow incident, specifies required and optional parameters, and mentions return values (incident number and sysId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_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 mentions that shortDescription is required but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_incident, classify_incident, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server