Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007

scf_update_scoped_control

Update implementation fields of a scoped control by its SCF identifier. Specify only the fields to change.

Instructions

Update a scoped control's implementation fields (write — editor+ role). Identify by scf_id, not UUID. Only provided fields are applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerNoAccountable owner of the control
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
scf_idYesSCF control identifier in DOMAIN-NN format (e.g., 'AST-01', 'GOV-02') — NOT the UUID
priorityNoImplementation priority: 'high', 'medium', or 'low'
assigned_toNoAssignee responsible for implementation
target_dateNoTarget completion date in ISO-8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
maturity_levelNoMaturity level with L prefix: L0 Not Performed, L1 Performed, L2 Planned, L3 Well Defined, L4 Quantitatively Controlled, L5 Continuously Improving
completion_dateNoActual completion date in ISO-8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
selection_reasonNoJustification for scoping decision — required for not_applicable or deferred
implementation_notesNoFree-text implementation notes and context
implementation_statusNoNew implementation status (lowercase): not_started, in_progress, implemented, ready_for_review, monitored, not_applicable, at_risk, or deferred
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it's a write operation, required role, identifier rule, and partial update behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors or side effects.

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 two succinct sentences that front-load the core action and resource. Every sentence adds distinct value: action+role, identifier hint, and update behavior. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential context but does not mention that the tool only applies to existing scoped controls or what the response format is. For a mutation tool without output schema, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% with well-described parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the update semantics ('Only provided fields are applied') and reinforcing the scf_id usage, which clarifies parameter intent beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('scoped control's implementation fields'), and includes role requirements ('write — editor+ role'). It also specifies the identifier type ('scf_id, not UUID'), distinguishing it from tools using UUIDs.

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 description mentions role requirement and partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are applied'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_batch_update_controls or scf_scope_framework. Context for when not to use is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MarkAC007/mcp-server-scf'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server