Modify an existing ServiceNow change request by updating fields like description, state, risk, impact, or assignment group to reflect current status and requirements.
Update an existing change request in ServiceNow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits/constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it's under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the change_id parameter represents, what happens after updating, or any behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters beyond what's in the name ('update_change_request'), failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing change request in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_article, update_incident, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing change request ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_change_request' or 'update_changeset' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.