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 initiate automatic risk scoring 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+]
  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 declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'write' is consistent and adds the role requirement (editor+). The description also discloses a non-obvious behavior: the platform auto-scores risk based on criticality and data handling, which tells the agent that risk scoring will happen as a side effect of creation.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, and permission; the second adds the key behavioral side effect. Every word earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states permission, the auto-scoring behavior, and the registry context. It could mention what the response returns, but that's a minor gap for a simple create operation.

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 eight parameters. The description adds the note that risk auto-scores based on criticality and data handling, which gives semantic weight to criticality, but it does not need to repeat parameter details.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('vendor in the TPRM registry'), and scope ('write — editor+ role'), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like scf_update_vendor or scf_create_system. The permission note further disambiguates who can invoke it.

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's 'write — editor+ role' and the auto-scoring note give useful context about when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious, and the schema note on org_id ('obtain from scf_list_organizations') provides a prerequisite.

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