ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

Get Knowledge Article

get_knowledge_article

Search published knowledge base articles by keyword to retrieve article number, title, category, and plain-text excerpt for incident resolution.

Instructions

Search published knowledge base articles by keyword (matches title and body). Returns the article number, title, category and a plain-text excerpt.

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "get_knowledge_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyword`	Yes	Keyword to search knowledge article titles and bodies
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

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 states the tool searches and returns fields, but omits behavioral details like read-only nature, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with no redundancy or irrelevant details. It is well-structured and 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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists return fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, ordering of results, or behavior when no matches are found. Still fairly complete for a simple search tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%; only 'keyword' has a description. The description adds that keyword matches title and body, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (e.g., default, pagination, maximum). This leaves the agent unclear on usage.

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 it searches published knowledge base articles by keyword, matching title and body, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are predominantly incident-related.

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 for searching knowledge articles but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions such as unpublished articles or specific use cases.

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

Deploy Server