Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_engagement

Update an audit engagement's name, frameworks, status, or fieldwork dates. Only provided fields change, and status must follow the draft → active → under_review → closed sequence.

Instructions

Update an engagement's name, frameworks, status or dates (write — editor role). Only passed fields change; status moves are caller-controlled: draft → active → under_review → closed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew engagement name
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoNew engagement status: draft, active, under_review or closed
end_dateNoFieldwork end date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
frameworksNoReplacement framework identifier list
start_dateNoFieldwork start date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
engagement_idYesAudit engagement UUID — obtain from scf_list_engagements

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"New engagement status (e.g. 'fieldwork', 'closed')"New value: +"New engagement status: draft, active, under_review or closed"
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "draft",
+  "active",
+  "under_review",
+  "closed"
+]
  2. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 description correctly adds that this is a write operation requiring an editor role. It also discloses partial-update behavior and the enforced status flow, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states key behaviors (partial update, status flow). No wasted words.

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 write tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: role requirement, partial update, and status constraints. It does not explain return values, but that is not necessary given the absence of an output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 each parameter. The description adds the status transition rule that is not in the schema, which aids correct use of the status parameter. However, it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond that, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (engagement) and lists the specific fields that can be changed (name, frameworks, status, dates). It distinguishes from the many other update tools by naming the resource explicitly, so an agent can immediately identify it as the engagement updater.

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 explains that only passed fields change (partial update) and that status transitions are caller-controlled with an explicit sequence (draft → active → under_review → closed). This provides clear guidance on how to use the tool correctly. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the intended use obvious.

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