Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_vendor

Update an existing vendor record by supplying only the fields you want to change, such as status, contact email, or criticality.

Instructions

Update an existing vendor record (write — editor+ role). Only provided fields are applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew vendor name
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoNew lifecycle status — one of: prospect, active, under_review, approved, suspended, offboarded
websiteNoNew website URL
categoryNoNew category label
vendor_idYesVendor UUID — obtain from scf_list_vendors
criticalityNoNew criticality tier
descriptionNoNew free-text description
contact_emailNoNew primary contact email
data_locationNoWhere the vendor stores or processes our data; null clears
flow_down_requirementsNoRequirements passed down to the vendor by contract; null clears
shared_responsibility_noteNoWho is responsible for what between us and the vendor; null clears

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / data_location
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 255,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Where the vendor stores or processes our data; null clears"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / flow_down_requirements
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Requirements passed down to the vendor by contract; null clears",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / shared_responsibility_note
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who is responsible for what between us and the vendor; null clears",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"New lifecycle status"New value: +"New lifecycle status — one of: prospect, active, under_review, approved, suspended, offboarded"
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "prospect",
-  "active",
-  "inactive",
-  "under_review"
-]New value: +[
+  "prospect",
+  "active",
+  "under_review",
+  "approved",
+  "suspended",
+  "offboarded"
+]
  3. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the concrete authorization requirement (editor+ role) and the patch semantics ("Only provided fields are applied"), which tells the agent omitted fields are not nulled — meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

A single sentence plus parenthetical, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two facts an agent most needs: permission level and update semantics. No filler.

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 a 12-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies the remaining essentials: it is a write, requires editor+, and is a partial update. It could note whether the update touches only this vendor's record (no cascade), but nothing critical is missing.

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 all 12 parameters, enum values, UUID formats, and the "null clears" semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's "only provided fields are applied" implies partial-update behavior but doesn't extend any individual parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Update an existing vendor record" states a specific verb and resource, and the contrast with scf_create_vendor is implicit in "existing". It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling write tools like scf_update_vendor_certification or scf_update_vendor_action_item, which target sub-resources of the same vendor.

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 names the required permission level (editor+) and the write nature, which tells an agent the preconditions for calling. It does not, however, contrast with sibling update tools or state when this is the wrong choice versus, say, updating a certification or action item.

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