ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

Incident Summary

incident_summary

Fetches an incident and its related comments and work notes, then creates a short executive summary of current status.

Instructions

Retrieve an incident plus its comments and work notes, then generate a concise executive summary of the current status.

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": {
      "incidentNumber": "<incidentNumber>"
    },
    "name": "incident_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`incidentNumber`	Yes	ServiceNow incident number, e.g. "INC0012345"

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a multi-step process (retrieve then generate) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This leaves behavioral uncertainty.

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 one sentence, concise and to the point. It could be improved by breaking into separate lines or using bullets for clarity, but it conveys the essential scope without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the summary alone, or also the raw incident/comments/work notes). This ambiguity harms completeness for an AI agent needing to use the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds a format example ('INC0012345') but does not provide additional semantic nuances 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 uses specific verbs ('Retrieve' and 'generate') and a clear resource ('incident plus its comments and work notes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_incident' (which likely returns only incident details) and 'search_incidents' (which performs search, not single retrieval with summary).

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 implies usage when a concise executive summary of an incident including comments and work notes is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'get_incident' for raw data without summary.

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

Deploy Server