Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_create_vendor

Create a vendor in the TPRM registry to track third-party risk. Platform auto-scores risk based on criticality and data handling.

Instructions

Create a vendor in the TPRM registry (write — editor+ role). Platform auto-scores risk based on criticality and data handling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesVendor legal or trading name (required)
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoLifecycle status (default prospect) — one of: prospect, active, under_review, approved, suspended, offboardedprospect
websiteNoVendor website URL
categoryNoCategory label (e.g., 'SaaS', 'Infrastructure', 'Consulting')
criticalityNoBusiness criticality tier (default 'medium')medium
descriptionNoShort free-text description of the vendor
contact_emailNoPrimary contact email address
data_locationNoWhere the vendor stores or processes our data
flow_down_requirementsNoRequirements passed down to the vendor by contract
shared_responsibility_noteNoWho is responsible for what between us and the vendor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / data_location
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the vendor stores or processes our data",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / flow_down_requirements
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Requirements passed down to the vendor by contract",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / shared_responsibility_note
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who is responsible for what between us and the vendor",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Lifecycle status (default 'prospect')"New value: +"Lifecycle status (default prospect) — one of: prospect, active, under_review, approved, suspended, offboarded"
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "prospect",
-  "active",
-  "inactive",
-  "under_review"
-]New value: +[
+  "prospect",
+  "active",
+  "under_review",
+  "approved",
+  "suspended",
+  "offboarded"
+]
  3. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds two things structured data cannot: the editor+ role requirement and the side effect that the platform auto-scores risk from criticality and data handling. That side effect is important behavioral context for a create call.

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 purpose and immediately followed by the permission requirement and side effect. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers role and scoring side effect but omits what happens on duplicate vendor names, what is returned (e.g., vendor id for follow-up calls), and any validation constraints. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics by stating that 'criticality' and data-handling inputs drive automated risk scoring — meaning those fields have downstream consequences rather than being passive metadata. It does not elaborate on other fields, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (vendor) plus the registry it lands in (TPRM), which distinguishes it from scf_list_vendors and scf_update_vendor. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create scope is unambiguous.

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)' tells the agent the required permission, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as scf_create_system or scf_trigger_vendor_research, and no prerequisite steps beyond the implied org_id lookup.

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