Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

add_unique_identifier_to_task

Add a unique identifier to a task's appTags to differentiate applications when multiple tasks share the same appType but need separate applications.

Instructions

Add a unique identifier key-value pair to a specific task's appTags.

Use this when multiple tasks share the same appType but need DIFFERENT applications. The unique identifier allows the system to match each application to its specific task.

WHEN TO USE:

  • After prepare_applications_for_execution() identifies tasks needing differentiation

  • When user chooses "separate applications" option for tasks with same appType

  • Before configuring separate applications for same appType tasks

NOT NEEDED WHEN:

  • User wants to SHARE the same application across multiple tasks

  • Task already has a unique appType (no other tasks share it)

WORKFLOW:

  1. Call prepare_applications_for_execution()

  2. If user chooses separate applications for an appType:

    • Call this tool for each task to add unique identifier

    • Use same key but different values (e.g., "purpose": "source" vs "purpose": "target")

  3. Configure applications with matching identifiers

Args: rule_name: Name of the rule containing the task task_alias: Alias of the task to update identifier_key: Unique identifier key (e.g., "purpose", "sourceSystem") identifier_value: Value for the identifier (e.g., "source-repo", "production-db")

Returns: Dict with update status and guidance

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_nameYes
task_aliasYes
identifier_keyYes
identifier_valueYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect (adding an identifier to appTags) and the purpose (matching applications to tasks). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing keys, error conditions (e.g., task not found), or authentication requirements. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately long but well-organized into sections (purpose, when/not to use, workflow, args, returns). It is front-loaded with the main action. While every section earns its place, the length could be slightly reduced without losing clarity. A score of 4 reflects good structure and efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, part of a multi-step workflow), the description provides sufficient context: it references the preceding step (prepare_applications_for_execution) and explains the return type. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating 'Dict with update status and guidance'. Overall, it is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing all four parameters with examples and context in an 'Args' section. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, guiding the agent on how to populate them correctly.

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 states the verb 'Add', the resource 'task's appTags', and the specific action 'unique identifier key-value pair'. It is precise and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_control_note' or 'update_control_note', which do not add identifiers to tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT NEEDED WHEN' sections, including a workflow that references a specific sibling tool (prepare_applications_for_execution). This gives clear context and alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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