Skip to main content
Glama
vparlapalli490

ServiceNow MCP Server

reject_change

Reject a ServiceNow change request by providing the change ID and rejection reason to prevent implementation of unwanted modifications.

Instructions

Reject a change request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
change_idYesChange request ID or sys_id
approver_idNoID of the approver
rejection_reasonYesReason for rejection

Implementation Reference

  • Implements the core logic for the reject_change tool: validates parameters, finds approval record, updates approval to rejected, sets change request state to canceled with rejection reason in work notes.
    def reject_change(
        auth_manager: AuthManager,
        server_config: ServerConfig,
        params: Dict[str, Any],
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Reject a change request in ServiceNow.
    
        Args:
            auth_manager: The authentication manager.
            server_config: The server configuration.
            params: The parameters for rejecting a change request.
    
        Returns:
            The result of the rejection.
        """
        # Unwrap and validate parameters
        result = _unwrap_and_validate_params(
            params, 
            RejectChangeParams,
            required_fields=["change_id", "rejection_reason"]
        )
        
        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 rejected
            approval_update_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/sysapproval_approver/{approval_id}"
            headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"
            
            approval_data = {
                "state": "rejected",
                "comments": validated_params.rejection_reason,
            }
            
            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 "canceled"
            change_url = f"{instance_url}/api/now/table/change_request/{validated_params.change_id}"
            
            change_data = {
                "state": "canceled",  # This may vary depending on ServiceNow configuration
                "work_notes": f"Change request rejected: {validated_params.rejection_reason}",
            }
            
            change_response = requests.patch(change_url, json=change_data, headers=headers)
            change_response.raise_for_status()
            
            return {
                "success": True,
                "message": "Change request rejected successfully",
            }
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"Error rejecting change: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error rejecting change: {str(e)}",
            } 
  • Pydantic model defining the input parameters for the reject_change tool: required change_id and rejection_reason, optional approver_id.
    class RejectChangeParams(BaseModel):
        """Parameters for rejecting 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")
        rejection_reason: str = Field(..., description="Reason for rejection")
  • Registers the reject_change tool in the central tool_definitions dictionary, mapping name to (function, params model, return type, description, serialization).
    "reject_change": (
        reject_change_tool,
        RejectChangeParams,
        str,
        "Reject a change request",
        "str",  # Tool returns simple message
    ),
  • Includes reject_change in the __all__ export list for the tools module.
    "reject_change",
  • Helper function used by reject_change (and other tools) to unwrap, validate parameters against Pydantic model, and check required fields.
    def _unwrap_and_validate_params(params: Any, model_class: Type[T], required_fields: List[str] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Helper function to unwrap and validate parameters.
        
        Args:
            params: The parameters to unwrap and validate.
            model_class: The Pydantic model class to validate against.
            required_fields: List of required field names.
            
        Returns:
            A tuple of (success, result) where result is either the validated parameters or an error message.
        """
        # Handle case where params might be wrapped in another dictionary
        if isinstance(params, dict) and len(params) == 1 and "params" in params and isinstance(params["params"], dict):
            logger.warning("Detected params wrapped in a 'params' key. Unwrapping...")
            params = params["params"]
        
        # Handle case where params might be a Pydantic model object
        if not isinstance(params, dict):
            try:
                # Try to convert to dict if it's a Pydantic model
                logger.warning("Params is not a dictionary. Attempting to convert...")
                params = params.dict() if hasattr(params, "dict") else dict(params)
            except Exception as e:
                logger.error(f"Failed to convert params to dictionary: {e}")
                return {
                    "success": False,
                    "message": f"Invalid parameters format. Expected a dictionary, got {type(params).__name__}",
                }
        
        # Validate required parameters are present
        if required_fields:
            for field in required_fields:
                if field not in params:
                    return {
                        "success": False,
                        "message": f"Missing required parameter '{field}'",
                    }
        
        try:
            # Validate parameters against the model
            validated_params = model_class(**params)
            return {
                "success": True,
                "params": validated_params,
            }
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error validating parameters: {e}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "message": f"Error validating parameters: {str(e)}",
            }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Reject a change request' implies a destructive write operation that modifies state, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to the change request status, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what rejection entails (e.g., status change, notifications), what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of change management workflows, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Reject a change request' clearly states the action (reject) and the resource (change request), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_change' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit comparison that would earn a 5.

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 like 'approve_change' or 'update_change_request', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a pending change request. Without any context about appropriate usage scenarios, this is minimal guidance.

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