Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-scf

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_risk_read

Read-only

Read an organization's risk register: list or fetch risks, view the 5x5 matrix, summary and profile, and trace controls to risks or risks to controls by selecting a method.

Instructions

Read the risk register: list risks, one risk, the 5x5 matrix, summary, profile, risks for a control, or controls for a risk. Pick with method.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYeslist: List the whole risk register (ordered by risk code): scores, treatment status and any acceptance (accepted_by, accepted_at, rationale, expiry, acceptance_state). Filter by status, level, category. get: Get one risk assessment: inherent and residual scores, treatment plan, owner, review date, and any acceptance (accepted_by, accepted_at, rationale, expires_on, acceptance_state). matrix: Get the 5×5 risk matrix data for the organization — risk distribution across likelihood × impact, ready for visualization. summary: Get the organization's aggregate risk summary: totals by severity, treatment status breakdown, and trend data. profile: Get the organization's risk profile (read — viewer role): the severity thresholds that band the 5×5 matrix into low, medium, high and critical. Auto-created with defaults if unset. for_control: List the risk codes a control addresses and this organization's assessments of them (read — viewer role). Control-to-risk traceability from the SCF catalog mapping. controls_for_risk: List the controls that address a risk code (read — viewer role). Works for catalog risks (R-XX-N via the SCF mapping) and custom risks (R-ORG-N via the org's control mappings).
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
scf_idNoSCF control ID in DOMAIN-NN format, e.g. IAC-01 Used by: for_control.
statusNoFilter by treatment status: identified, analysed, treating, treated, accepted or monitoring (sent as the platform's treatment_status) Used by: list.
risk_idNoRisk assessment ID — obtain from scf_list_risks Used by: get.
categoryNoFilter by catalog risk category code, e.g. 'AC' matches R-AC-N Used by: list.
risk_codeNoRisk code — catalog R-XX-N or custom R-ORG-N Used by: controls_for_risk.
risk_levelNoFilter by inherent risk level, banded by the org's risk profile Used by: list.
acceptance_stateNoAccepted risks only, by their approval: 'approved' (in force), 'expired' (past acceptance_expires_on) or 'unapproved' (accepted with no approval recorded) Used by: list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv4.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation establishes non-mutating behavior, and the description consistently presents read operations without contradicting it. Beyond listing the available views, it adds little operational context; authorization requirements and the schema's caveat that an unset profile is auto-created with defaults are not surfaced in the description.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and then provide the dispatch instruction. The operation list is dense but efficient, with each item identifying a distinct capability and no filler.

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 seven-method, nine-parameter read dispatcher, the description supplies an adequate top-level map while the rich schema covers per-method results, identifiers, and filters. Explicit sibling routing and important read-side caveats would improve it, but the supplied definition generally enables correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents the method values, method-specific parameters, filters, formats, and sources for identifiers. "Pick with method" and the plain-English operation list provide a useful overview but little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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?

The verb "Read" and resource "risk register" are explicit, and the enumerated views clarify the tool's scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as scf_custom_risk_read or scf_risk_write, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

"Read the risk register" establishes the usage context, while "Pick with method" explains how to select an operation. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives for writes, custom-risk reads, or other related tools.

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