Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_update_vendor

Update specific fields of an existing vendor record in the SCF Controls Platform. Provide only the changes to apply, leaving other details unchanged.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+]
  2. 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 signal a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds practical behavioral value by stating the editor+ role requirement and the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are applied'), which informs an agent that omitted fields are left unchanged.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds role and partial-update behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 9-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema covers the critical decisions: what is updated, the required role, and that this is a partial update. It does not describe return values or error handling, but those are less essential given the schema's completeness.

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%, and every parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing vendor record'. It also clarifies the write nature and required role, which distinguishes it from read-only vendor tools like scf_get_vendor and scf_list_vendors. The sibling scf_create_vendor is implicitly set apart by 'existing'.

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?

The description gives clear context: this tool updates an existing vendor record, not creates one, and it applies only provided fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives like scf_create_vendor or scf_get_vendor, but the 'existing' wording and role hint supply enough directional 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