Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_create_system

Create a system record in your organization's infrastructure inventory, enabling links to capabilities and evidence for compliance tracking.

Instructions

Create a system in the organization's infrastructure inventory (write — editor+ role). Systems can be linked to capabilities and evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable system name (required)
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoLifecycle status (default: active)active
vendorNoLegacy free-text vendor name (prefer vendor_id for a structural link)
categoryNoFree-text category (e.g., 'SIEM', 'Endpoint', 'Identity')
vendor_idNoVendor UUID to structurally link this system to — obtain from scf_list_vendors (same org)
descriptionNoFree-text description of the system
system_typeYesSystem classification — one of: cloud_provider, identity_provider, ticketing, logging, security_tool, code_repository, document_management, endpoint_management, vulnerability_management, email_security, security_awareness, password_manager, communication, hr_system, custom
catalog_template_idNoSystem-catalog template ID to link — obtain from scf_list_system_catalog

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / system_type / description
      Previous value: -"System classification: cloud_provider, identity_provider, ticketing, logging, security_tool, code_repository, document_management, or custom"New value: +"System classification — one of: cloud_provider, identity_provider, ticketing, logging, security_tool, code_repository, document_management, endpoint_management, vulnerability_management, email_security, security_awareness, password_manager, communication, hr_system, custom"
    • changedInput schema / properties / system_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "cloud_provider",
-  "identity_provider",
-  "ticketing",
-  "logging",
-  "security_tool",
-  "code_repository",
-  "document_management",
-  "custom"
-]New value: +[
+  "cloud_provider",
+  "identity_provider",
+  "ticketing",
+  "logging",
+  "security_tool",
+  "code_repository",
+  "document_management",
+  "endpoint_management",
+  "vulnerability_management",
+  "email_security",
+  "security_awareness",
+  "password_manager",
+  "communication",
+  "hr_system",
+  "custom"
+]
  2. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write behavior is expected. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the editor+ permission requirement and noting that systems can later be linked to capabilities and evidence. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and permission requirement, and the second adds relevant linking context without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a straightforward create operation, the description plus the fully documented schema covers the essential invocation context. The only notable gap is that the description does not state what the create call returns, especially since there is no output schema, but this is minor given the tool's simple create behavior.

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 9 parameters and their meanings. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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?

The description states the precise action ("Create"), the resource ("system"), and the context ("organization's infrastructure inventory"). It also clearly signals the write nature and editor+ role, distinguishing this from read-only and mutation siblings like scf_list_systems and scf_update_system.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: creating a system in the org inventory and requiring editor+ permissions. It does not explicitly contrast with scf_update_system for existing systems, but the "Create" verb and inventory context make the appropriate scenario obvious. No misleading usage guidance is present.

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