Skip to main content
Glama
vparlapalli490

ServiceNow MCP Server

approve_change

Approve ServiceNow change requests by providing change ID, approver details, and optional comments to authorize implementation.

Instructions

Approve a change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
change_idYesChange request ID or sys_id
approver_idNoID of the approver
approval_commentsNoComments for the approval

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function implementing the approve_change tool. Validates parameters, queries for approval record, updates approval to 'approved', and advances change request state to 'implement' via ServiceNow REST API.
    def approve_change(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Approve a change request in ServiceNow.
    
        Args:
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            server_config: The server configuration.
            params: The parameters for approving a change request.
    
        Returns:
            The result of the approval.
        """
        # Unwrap and validate parameters
        result = _unwrap_and_validate_params(
            params, 
            ApproveChangeParams,
            required_fields=["change_id"]
        )
        
        if not result["success"]:
            return result
        
        validated_params = result["params"]
        
        # Get the instance URL
        instance_url = _get_instance_url(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not instance_url:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find instance_url in either server_config or auth_manager",
            }
        
        # Get the headers
        headers = _get_headers(auth_manager, server_config)
        if not headers:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": "Cannot find get_headers method in either auth_manager or server_config",
            }
        
        # First, find the approval record
        approval_query_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver"
        
        query_params = {
            "sysparm_query": f"document_id={validated_params.change_id}",
            "sysparm_limit": 1,
        }
        
        try:
            approval_response = requests.get(approval_query_url, headers=headers, params=query_params)
            approval_response.raise_for_status()
            
            approval_result = approval_response.json()
            
            if not approval_result.get("result") or len(approval_result["result"]) == 0:
                return {
                    "success": False,
                    "message": "No approval record found for this change request",
                }
            
            approval_id = approval_result["result"][0]["sys_id"]
            
            # Now, update the approval record to approved
            approval_update_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver/{approval_id}"
            headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"
            
            approval_data = {
                "state": "approved",
            }
            
            if validated_params.approval_comments:
                approval_data["comments"] = validated_params.approval_comments
            
            approval_update_response = requests.patch(approval_update_url, json=approval_data, headers=headers)
            approval_update_response.raise_for_status()
            
            # Finally, update the change request state to "implement"
            change_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_request/{validated_params.change_id}"
            
            change_data = {
                "state": "implement",  # This may vary depending on ServiceNow configuration
            }
            
            change_response = requests.patch(change_url, json=change_data, headers=headers)
            change_response.raise_for_status()
            
            return {
                "success": True,
                "message": "Change request approved successfully",
            }
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error approving change: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error approving change: {str(e)}",
            }
  • Pydantic model defining the input schema and validation for approve_change tool parameters.
    class ApproveChangeParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for approving a change request."""
    
        change_id: str = Field(..., description="Change request ID or sys_id")
        approver_id: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="ID of the approver")
        approval_comments: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Comments for the approval")
  • MCP tool registration entry in get_tool_definitions(), mapping 'approve_change' to its handler, schema, description, and serialization config.
    "approve_change": (
        approve_change_tool,
        ApproveChangeParams,
        str,
        "Approve a change request",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
  • Re-export of approve_change function from change_tools.py in the tools package __init__, making it available for import.
    from servicenow_mcp.tools.change_tools import (
        add_change_task,
        approve_change,
        create_change_request,
        get_change_request_details,
        list_change_requests,
        reject_change,
        submit_change_for_approval,
        update_change_request,
    )
  • Inclusion of 'approve_change' in __all__ list for the tools package, facilitating star-imports.
    "approve_change",
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Approve' implies a write/mutation operation that likely changes the state of a change request, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this action is reversible, what happens after approval (e.g., workflow progression), or any side effects. It's minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations. It's appropriately sized for its current content but under-specified overall.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool for approving changes) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what state the change request transitions to), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely alters system state, this is inadequate.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (change_id, approver_id, approval_comments). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of change_id (e.g., numeric vs. alphanumeric) or when approver_id might be omitted. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Approve a change request' clearly states the action (approve) and resource (change request), but it's quite generic. It doesn't specify what system or context this applies to (e.g., IT change management), nor does it distinguish from the sibling 'reject_change' tool beyond the opposite action. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a change request must be in a pending approval state), nor does it reference the sibling 'reject_change' tool for comparison. There's no context about when approval is appropriate versus other actions like updating or commenting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vparlapalli490/MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server