Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_create_system

Add a system to your organization's infrastructure inventory and link it 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')
in_scopeNoInside the assessment boundary (true) or outside (false); omit when not decided
rpo_hoursNoRecovery point objective, in hours (≥ 0)
rto_hoursNoRecovery time objective, in hours (≥ 0)
vendor_idNoVendor UUID to structurally link this system to — obtain from scf_list_vendors (same org)
criticalityNoBusiness criticality — one of: low, medium, high, critical
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
hosting_locationNoWhere the system runs, e.g. a cloud region or data centre
catalog_template_idNoSystem-catalog template ID to link — obtain from scf_list_system_catalog
data_classificationNoHighest classification of data held — one of: public, internal, confidential, restricted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv3.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / criticality
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Business criticality — one of: low, medium, high, critical",
+  "enum": [
+    "low",
+    "medium",
+    "high",
+    "critical"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / data_classification
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Highest classification of data held — one of: public, internal, confidential, restricted",
+  "enum": [
+    "public",
+    "internal",
+    "confidential",
+    "restricted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / hosting_location
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the system runs, e.g. a cloud region or data centre",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_scope
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inside the assessment boundary (true) or outside (false); omit when not decided",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / rpo_hours
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recovery point objective, in hours (≥ 0)",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / rto_hours
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recovery time objective, in hours (≥ 0)",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. 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"
+]
  3. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/additive nature is covered structurally. The description adds the editor+ authorization requirement, which the annotations do not convey, plus the note that systems link to capabilities and evidence. It omits idempotency/duplicate-name behavior and what is returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target before the role constraint and the linkage note. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 create tool with a fully documented 15-parameter schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing auth/role context and the entity's relational role. The only real gap is post-call behavior (returned ID, duplicate handling), which is modest for an additive, non-destructive create.

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 every one of the 15 parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums, defaults, and UUID sourcing hints (scf_list_organizations, scf_list_vendors, scf_list_system_catalog). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('a system') and scopes it to the 'organization's infrastructure inventory', which cleanly separates it from siblings such as scf_create_vendor, scf_create_team, and scf_create_evidence. An agent can identify the target entity without opening the schema.

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?

The parenthetical '(write — editor+ role)' communicates the permission precondition and write nature, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition (e.g., use scf_update_system for existing systems), so selection guidance is only implied.

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