ServiceNow Incident MCP Server

Update Incident

update_incident

Append internal work notes or customer-visible comments to ServiceNow incidents to capture progress and communicate updates.

Instructions

Append a work note (internal) and/or a customer-visible comment to an incident. Provide at least one of workNote or comment.

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": "update_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`incidentNumber`	Yes	ServiceNow incident number, e.g. "INC0012345"
`workNote`	No	Internal work note to append
`comment`	No	Customer-visible comment to append

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 discloses the append behavior and the requirement of at least one field, but does not mention authorization, rate limits, or whether it can update other fields. Thus it adds moderate value.

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 consists of two short sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded, and the requirement is clearly stated in the second sentence.

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?

For a simple tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameters are needed, and the constraint. It could hint at the response format, but that is not required by the rules.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint 'Provide at least one of workNote or comment', which provides additional meaning beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 appends work notes and/or comments to an incident, using specific verbs 'Append' and 'Provide', and distinguishes from siblings like assign_incident or close_incident by focusing solely on note/comment updates.

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 the tool is for appending notes/comments only, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling list provides context, making the usage reasonably clear.

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

Deploy Server