Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_system

Update an existing system record by applying only the supplied fields—name, status, vendor, category, system type, description, or links—preserving all other values.

Instructions

Update an existing system record (write — editor+ role). All fields are optional; only provided fields are applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew system name
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoNew lifecycle status
vendorNoNew legacy free-text vendor name (prefer vendor_id)
categoryNoNew free-text category
system_idYesSystem UUID to update — obtain from scf_list_systems
vendor_idNoNew structural vendor link (UUID, same org) — obtain from scf_list_vendors
descriptionNoNew system description
system_typeNoNew system classification — one of: cloud_provider, identity_provider, ticketing, logging, security_tool, code_repository, document_management, endpoint_management, vulnerability_management, email_security, security_awareness, password_manager, communication, hr_system, custom
catalog_template_idNoNew system-catalog template ID link — obtain from scf_list_system_catalog

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / system_type / description
      Previous value: -"New system classification"New value: +"New system classification — one of: cloud_provider, identity_provider, ticketing, logging, security_tool, code_repository, document_management, endpoint_management, vulnerability_management, email_security, security_awareness, password_manager, communication, hr_system, custom"
    • changedInput schema / properties / system_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "cloud_provider",
-  "identity_provider",
-  "ticketing",
-  "logging",
-  "security_tool",
-  "code_repository",
-  "document_management",
-  "custom"
-]New value: +[
+  "cloud_provider",
+  "identity_provider",
+  "ticketing",
+  "logging",
+  "security_tool",
+  "code_repository",
+  "document_management",
+  "endpoint_management",
+  "vulnerability_management",
+  "email_security",
+  "security_awareness",
+  "password_manager",
+  "communication",
+  "hr_system",
+  "custom"
+]
  2. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly labels the operation as a write, mentions the editor+ role requirement, and spells out partial update semantics ('All fields are optional; only provided fields are applied'). This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core action, role constraint, and key partial-update behavior in minimal space, earning every word.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a targeted update tool, but it lacks a few context items. With no output schema, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., the updated system object), nor does it mention validation behavior (e.g., whether vendor_id must belong to the same org). Expected response and error semantics are left unspecified, though the schema provides ample parameter context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: 'only provided fields are applied' clarifies that omitted fields are not reset or overwritten, which is not inferable from the schema alone. This is a genuine addition to parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing system record'), clearly distinguishing it from scf_create_system, scf_get_system, and scf_list_systems. It also notes the write/editor+ role, which further pins down the action.

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 phrase 'existing system record' implies the tool is for updating current systems, not creating new ones, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The sibling scf_create_system is not mentioned as the alternative for new records, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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