Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

by mdasiff
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Suggest Assignment Group

suggest_assignment_group

Suggests the most likely assignment group for a free-text issue using keyword-routing rules. Returns the group and reason.

Instructions

Suggest the most likely assignment group for a free-text issue using a documented keyword-routing rule engine. Returns {assignmentGroup, 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": "suggest_assignment_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesFree-text description of the issue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description clarifies it uses a documented keyword-routing rule engine (non-ML, deterministic) and returns a structured object {assignmentGroup, reason}. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected. It adequately informs the agent about behavior.

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?

A single, dense sentence that immediately communicates purpose and outcome. No wasted words, and it front-loads the core action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format. With one required parameter and a simple rule-based engine, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% and already describes 'issue' as a free-text string. The description adds 'free-text' context but no additional constraints or formatting details. 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's purpose: suggesting the most likely assignment group for a free-text issue using a keyword-routing rule engine. It differentiates from siblings like 'assign_incident' (actual assignment) and 'classify_incident' (different scope).

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 the tool is for getting a suggestion before assigning, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., 'assign_incident'). No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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