Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_system_capability

Update a system's evidence capability by modifying only specified fields, advancing status from potential through configured to active as the collector is wired up.

Instructions

Update a system's evidence capability (write — editor role). Only passed fields change; move status potential → configured → active as the collector is wired up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoFree-text notes about the capability
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
system_idYesSystem UUID — obtain from scf_list_systems
data_formatNoFormat of the collected data, e.g. 'csv', 'json', 'pdf'
capability_idYesCapability UUID — obtain from scf_list_system_capabilities
confidence_levelNoConfidence in evidence quality
capability_statusNoCapability status
collection_methodNoHow the evidence is collected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the editor-role requirement, partial-update behavior, and the expected status progression. These are meaningful behavioral details not expressed in the schema or 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The role requirement, partial-update rule, and status workflow are all communicated efficiently and are front-loaded.

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 update tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description plus fully described schema covers identifiers, optional fields, enums, role, and transition semantics. Return/error behavior is not covered, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter already documented, including enum values and UUID provenance. The description adds context around capability_status transitions but does not need to redefine parameters.

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 specifies the operation ('Update'), the resource ('a system's evidence capability'), and the nature of the operation ('write — editor role'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_create_system_capability and scf_list_system_capabilities.

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 provides clear usage context: modify an existing capability, only passed fields change, and status progresses through potential → configured → active. It does not explicitly state when to prefer create or list siblings, so it lacks formal exclusions.

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