Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
now-sdk-ext-mcp

now-sdk-ext-mcp

by sonisoft-cnanda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove Choice

remove_choice
Destructive

Removes a choice value from a ServiceNow column's choice list in a specified update set; it refuses when records still use the value, so deactivate first unless removal is explicitly requested.

Instructions

Remove a choice from a column's list, captured in the named update set. Refused while records hold the value: prefer set_choice with inactive, and remove anyway only when the user asked.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoThe record's application: its scope name (e.g. "x_acme_app"), or "global". Give this or scope_id.
tableYesThe table.
valueYesThe stored value of the choice to remove.
columnYesThe column, prefix included (u_ in Global).
instanceNoThe ServiceNow instance auth alias to connect to. This is the alias configured via `snc configure` (e.g., "myinstance", "prod", "test"). The user will typically refer to this by name when saying things like "on my myinstance instance". If not provided, falls back to the SN_AUTH_ALIAS environment variable.
languageNoChoice language (sys_choice.language, e.g. en, pb); en when omitted.
scope_idNoThe record's application by sys_scope sys_id, instead of scope.
update_setYessys_id of an In progress update set of that application (create_update_set). The capture is verified there; for adding a column and for layout saves it must also be the working set (set_current_update_set).
confirm_in_useNoThe user agreed to remove it although records hold the value.
acknowledge_upgrade_skipNoOnly for an installed Store application, and only after the user has reviewed the change: upgrades of that application then skip this file until the customization is reviewed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv5.5.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the operation is refused while records still hold the value. It does not describe the upgrade-skip consequence or response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the refusal/alternative guidance follows immediately.

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 destructive 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the riskiest decision points (refusal, alternative, user consent). Scope/instance/language parameters are left entirely to the fully documented schema, which is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns one more by explaining what the refusal means in practice, which is the real semantics behind confirm_in_use, and by noting the removal is captured in the named update set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a choice from a column's list) plus the update-set capture effect, which cleanly separates it from set_choice and remove_table_column.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes the alternative (prefer set_choice with inactive) and the narrow condition for using this tool anyway (only when the user asked), so the agent knows both when to use and when not to.

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