Skip to main content
Glama
tedorigawa001

ServiceNow-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_portal_widget

Idempotent

Update an existing Service Portal widget's source code (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true and SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, including metadata-only updates)

Instructions

Update an existing Service Portal widget's source code (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true and SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, including metadata-only updates)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesAllowed fields: name, id, template, css, client_script, script, server_script, option_schema, demo_data
sys_idYesWidget sys_id

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: -"Fields to update: template, css, client_script, server_script, name, etc."New value: +"Allowed fields: name, id, template, css, client_script, script, server_script, option_schema, demo_data"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "client_script": {},
+  "css": {},
+  "demo_data": {},
+  "id": {},
+  "name": {},
+  "option_schema": {},
+  "script": {},
+  "server_script": {},
+  "template": {}
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely new operational context not in annotations: that the environment must have WRITE_ENABLED and SCRIPTING_ENABLED set, and that metadata-only updates still require them. What it omits is consequences of overwriting existing script/code.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing parenthetical is slightly dense but earns its place by resolving the coding-vs-metadata ambiguity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool, annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully documents both parameters including nested allowed fields, and there is no output schema to explain. The description adds the environment prerequisites, which is the one thing an agent could not infer.

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% and the nested 'fields' object enumerates all allowed fields with additionalProperties=false, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond 'source code,' so 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 existing Service Portal widget's source code.' The parenthetical clarifies it also covers metadata-only updates, which prevents a narrow reading. It does not name sibling tools (create_portal_widget, get_portal_widget), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 prerequisite flags (WRITE_ENABLED=true, SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) tell the agent when the call can succeed, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_portal_widget or get_portal_widget, and no statement about failure behavior when flags are off.

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