snow-mcp

update_incident

Update specific fields on an existing ServiceNow incident record using its system ID. Modify incident details without replacing the entire record.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing incident record identified by sys_id (partial update).

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": {
      "sys_id": "<sys_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes
`sys_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 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 discloses a partial update behavior, but omits details like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if sys_id does not exist), rate limits, or side effects. More context would improve agent decision-making.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes critical qualifier '(partial update)'. No redundant words; every part serves a purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description lacks information about the return value (e.g., updated record or confirmation) and error conditions. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap. However, the tool is simple and partial update is mentioned, so it is somewhat complete but could be more helpful.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that fields is an object containing the fields to update and that sys_id identifies the record. However, it does not describe the structure of the fields object (e.g., key-value pairs) or any constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 updates an existing incident record identified by sys_id, explicitly noting it is a partial update. The verb 'update' and resource 'incident record' are specific, and the sibling tools update different resources (e.g., request, requested_item), so distinction is clear.

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 updating existing incidents, providing no explicit guidance on when to use it versus creating, reading, or listing incidents. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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