Skip to main content
Glama
tedorigawa001

ServiceNow-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_asset

Idempotent

Update an IT asset record. [Write]

Instructions

Update an IT asset record. [Write]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesFields to update
sys_idYesAsset sys_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "asset_tag": {},
+  "assigned_to": {},
+  "comments": {},
+  "cost": {},
+  "cost_center": {},
+  "display_name": {},
+  "disposal_date": {},
+  "disposal_reason": {},
+  "install_status": {},
+  "location": {},
+  "model": {},
+  "model_category": {},
+  "purchase_date": {},
+  "serial_number": {},
+  "work_notes": {}
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the '[Write]' marker largely restates structured data. The description adds nothing about what happens to unspecified fields, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., lifecycle/audit impacts) that annotations don't cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two very short fragments, front-loaded with the action. The '[Write]' marker is mildly redundant with annotations but costs almost nothing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a mutation tool over a 15-field nested object with no output schema and no per-field description beyond 'Fields to update'. An agent gets no help on partial-update semantics, field format expectations, or failure modes—the description should carry more of that burden.

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%, so sys_id and the nested 'fields' object are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about which of the 15 updatable fields are meaningful or how partial updates behave, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an IT asset record'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_problem, update_user, or create_asset. No scope nuance (which asset types, whether it's CMDB-backed) but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to update vs. create_asset, retire_asset, or track_asset_lifecycle, all of which are siblings. The '[Write]' tag flags the mutation class but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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