Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

add_citation_to_asset_control

Link authority document citations to asset controls to map regulatory requirements and establish compliant asset hierarchies with controls and checks.

Instructions

Create a new asse with an initial control and check structure. The asset will be created with a hierarchical structure: asset -> control -> check.

Args: - assetControlId (str): Id of the control in asset. - authorityDocument (str): Authority document name of the citation. - authorityDocumentControlId (str): Id of the control in authority document.

Returns: - success (bool): Indicates if the citation was created successfully. - error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during creation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetControlIdYes
authorityDocumentYes
authorityDocumentControlIdYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, and contradicts likely behavior implied by tool name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Contains typo ('asse'), and the misleading opening sentence wastes space; standard Args/Returns structure is present but content quality is poor.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complex domain (assets, controls, authority documents) and numerous sibling tools, fails to explain citation relationships or clarify the asset creation contradiction.

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?

Since schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section provides necessary basic semantics for all 3 parameters, though definitions are minimal and circular for assetControlId.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Description states it 'creates a new asset' but tool name indicates it adds citations to existing controls; contradiction creates confusion about actual purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives like create_asset_and_check or how citation addition differs from other modification tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ComplianceCow/cow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server