Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_set_framework_basis

Set or clear MCR/DSR basis, obligation type, and source for an active scoped framework, replacing all three values. Use for admin-only scope justification.

Instructions

Record why a scoped framework is in scope (write — ADMIN role): basis mcr|dsr, obligation_type and obligation_source. Replaces all three; null clears. Only an active (scoped) framework, else 404.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisYes'mcr' (mandatory compliance requirement) or 'dsr' (discretionary security requirement); null leaves it unclassified. Reclassifying MCR to DSR changes which exclusions need an approver, hence admin-only
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
framework_idYesFramework slug of a framework the org has scoped — obtain from scf_get_framework_scope_summary
obligation_typeNoWhere the obligation comes from: statutory, regulatory, contractual or discretionary; omitted or null clears it
obligation_sourceNoThe law, regulation or contract behind it (max 2000 characters); omitted, null or blank clears it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.7.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the ADMIN role requirement, the replace-all semantics ('Replaces all three'), the null-clearing behavior, and the 404 precondition for inactive frameworks. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before calling a setter.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and role, then the field payload, then the replacement and error semantics. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a write tool with no output schema and rich per-parameter schema documentation, the description covers purpose, authorization, preconditions, replacement/clearing semantics, and the failure mode. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds set-level semantics not captured per-parameter: all three values are replaced together and null clears them. The rest (mcr/dsr meanings, obligation_type/source) largely restates the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Record why a scoped framework is in scope') and names the fields involved (basis, obligation_type, obligation_source). It implicitly distinguishes itself from scoping tools by requiring an already-active framework, but it never names a sibling to route against explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

It provides clear context for use: this is a write operation requiring ADMIN role, and it only works on an active (scoped) framework (else 404). That is enough to know when it is applicable, but there is no explicit comparison or exclusion against adjacent tools like scf_set_scope_override or scf_set_control_basis_override.

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