Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_scoped_control

Update implementation fields for a scoped control by scf_id; only provided fields apply. Marking at_risk raises a deficiency; material controls require admin for not_applicable.

Instructions

Update a scoped control's implementation fields (write — editor+). Identify by scf_id. Only provided fields apply. Material controls: admin for not_applicable. at_risk raises a deficiency.

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. Moving to at_risk raises a deficiency (see scf_list_deficiencies). A material control (catalogue weighting 10, or set material by an admin) can only leave scope through scf_set_scope_override by an admin (other paths 409), and only an admin may mark it not_applicable (403 otherwise).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.7.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / implementation_status / description
      Previous value: -"New implementation status (lowercase): not_started, in_progress, implemented, ready_for_review, monitored, not_applicable, at_risk, or deferred"New value: +"New implementation status (lowercase): not_started, in_progress, implemented, ready_for_review, monitored, not_applicable, at_risk, or deferred. Moving to at_risk raises a deficiency (see scf_list_deficiencies). A material control (catalogue weighting 10, or set material by an admin) can only leave scope through scf_set_scope_override by an admin (other paths 409), and only an admin may mark it not_applicable (403 otherwise)."
  2. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: requires editor+ permission, notes only provided fields apply (partial update semantics), warns that at_risk raises a deficiency, and that material controls need admin to mark not_applicable. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantive behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Terse, front-loaded with the core action and required identifier, then conditional behaviors. Every clause earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly telegraphic and could flow better without losing content.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral edge cases (deficiency creation, admin requirements) and permission level. It omits return value expectations, but those are not critical for a write tool and the description covers the operational essentials.

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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds scoping constraints for scf_id and implementation_status behavior but doesn't add parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a scoped control's implementation fields') and distinguishes itself from siblings like scf_batch_update_controls and scf_update_compensating_control. An agent can immediately tell this is the single-control update path.

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?

Implies when to use it ('Identify by scf_id', 'Only provided fields apply') but doesn't explicitly route to alternatives like scf_batch_update_controls for bulk operations or scf_set_scope_override for scope changes. The in-schema guidance about material controls partially compensates, but the description itself lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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