Skip to main content
Glama
tedorigawa001

ServiceNow-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_story

Idempotent

Update an agile story (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)

Instructions

Update an agile story (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesAllowed fields: short_description, story_points, sprint, epic, description, assigned_to
sys_idYesSystem ID of the story

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, story_points, sprint, epic, description, assigned_to"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "assigned_to": {},
+  "description": {},
+  "epic": {},
+  "short_description": {},
+  "sprint": {},
+  "story_points": {}
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful WRITE_ENABLED=true operational prerequisite, but it does not clarify partial-update behavior, field-level effects, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 no wasted text. The parenthetical precondition is concise and directly relevant to invocation.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the definition contains enough structured information to invoke the tool. However, the description itself does not clarify update semantics such as partial versus full replacement or behavior for omitted fields, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.

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%, and the nested fields object explicitly lists allowed fields, so parameter meaning is handled by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 agile story. It is clearly distinct from create_story and list_stories, but it does not explicitly differentiate from update_scrum_task or explain update scope.

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?

The only usage guidance is the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite. It does not explain when to use this instead of create_story, update_scrum_task, or other story-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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