Skip to main content
Glama
tedorigawa001

ServiceNow-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_epic

Idempotent

Update an epic (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)

Instructions

Update an epic (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesAllowed fields: short_description, description, product, theme, parent_epic
sys_idYesSystem ID of the epic

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Key-value pairs to update"New value: +"Allowed fields: short_description, description, product, theme, parent_epic"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "description": {},
+  "parent_epic": {},
+  "product": {},
+  "short_description": {},
+  "theme": {}
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, but does not explain partial-update behavior, field handling, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the prerequisite in parentheses. It contains no filler and is appropriately compact given the schema supplies field details.

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?

With rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers the core action and WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite. It still omits partial-update semantics and any error or return expectations, though no output schema exists.

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 100%: sys_id is documented as 'System ID of the epic' and fields lists allowed properties. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an epic'. The verb distinguishes it from create_epic and list_epics, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings.

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?

It provides the operational prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' and implies use for modifying existing epics, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_epic, update_story, or other update tools.

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