Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007

scf_update_scoped_control

Update scoped control implementation details by SCF ID (e.g., AST-01) — only supplied fields change, preserving others. Specify owner, status, dates, priority, or notes as needed.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 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 already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the editor+ role requirement, the scf_id-not-UUID caveat, and the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are applied'). This helps prevent incorrect invocation.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys the operation, required role, identifier quirk, and patch behavior with no filler. Every clause 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?

With 11 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to enumerate fields. It covers the key invocation caveats. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and this is not critical for a partial-update tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operation-level parameter meaning by clarifying that only explicitly provided fields are updated, which is critical for optional parameters and not stated in the schema. This goes slightly 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a scoped control's implementation fields'. It clearly distinguishes this from read-only list/get siblings and from batch operations by focusing on a single control's implementation fields.

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?

It provides useful context: this is a write operation requiring editor+ role, and it identifies the control by scf_id rather than UUID. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over scf_batch_update_controls or otherwise exclude alternatives, leaving some routing to inference.

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