Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_create_engagement

Create a draft audit engagement for named frameworks, freezing in-scope controls against the current catalog version to preserve scope after deprecations.

Instructions

Create an audit engagement in draft (write — editor role). Freezes the in-scope controls for the named frameworks against the current catalog version, so the scope renders after deprecations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesEngagement name, e.g. a framework and audit period
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
end_dateNoFieldwork end date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
frameworksYesFramework identifiers in scope — obtain from scf_list_frameworks
start_dateNoFieldwork start date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate write and non-destructive, but the description adds key behavior: freezes in-scope controls against current catalog version and requires editor role. This adds context beyond the annotations.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with purpose and includes the important scope-freezing side effect without verbosity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Complete for a creation tool: explains purpose, draft status, scope freezing, and permission. No output schema is present, but that is not required. Minor lack of return value details is acceptable.

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% with each parameter described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (audit engagement), and distinguishes from siblings like scf_update_engagement and scf_delete_engagement by specifying draft creation and editor role. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Implies usage for creating new engagements, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. No reference to scf_update_engagement for modifications, leaving some inference required.

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