No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 196 tools
Most tools are cleanly separated by a consistent verb+resource pattern and unusually detailed descriptions, so list/get/summary variants are usually distinguishable. However, the 196-tool surface reuses the same vocabulary across different concepts (capability vs capability_theme vs system_capability) and has near-neighbor pairs like review_window_assessment vs review_window_assessment_verdict that can mislead before the description is read.
Names are almost uniformly scf_ + snake_case verb_noun, and resource nouns remain stable across list/get/create/update/delete operations. Minor deviations—batch vs bulk, get_systems_for_evidence, and long chains like review_window_assessment_verdict—add noise but do not break the overall pattern.
196 tools is far beyond a coherent single-server surface, even for a broad GRC platform. It would be much more navigable split into per-domain servers (evidence, risk, vendor, engagement, documents, admin). The sheer namespace forces agents to scan a huge list for any task.
Across controls, evidence, risks, vendors, teams, engagements, documents, and webhooks, the set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage with create/read/update/delete or deliberate status-transition alternatives. Minor gaps exist—no update_webhook, no delete for systems/vendors/evidence tracking records—but they are workable and often appear to be retention-by-design.
