Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

create_asset_and_check

Create compliance assets with control-check hierarchies to organize audit evidence. Establishes hierarchical structures for governance tracking and regulatory compliance documentation.

Instructions

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

Args: - assetName (str): Name of the asset to be created. - controlName (str): Name of the initial control to be created within the asset. - checkName (str): Name of the initial check to be created under the control. (letters and numbers only, no spaces) - checkDescription (str): Description of the initial check.

Returns: - success (bool): Indicates if the asset was created successfully. - assetId (str): ID of the created asset (only present if successful). - error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during creation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNameYes
controlNameYes
checkNameYes
checkDescriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the hierarchical structure created (asset->parentcontrol->control->check) beyond schema, but lacks operational details (idempotency, failure modes, side effects) given no annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Structured Args/Returns format is readable but contains typo ('asse') and could front-load key constraints more prominently.

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?

Adequately documents all parameters and return values given zero schema descriptions, though missing edge case handling (e.g., duplicate asset names).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining all 4 parameters inline, including critical constraint on checkName (letters/numbers only, no spaces) not present in schema.

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?

Clear action (create asset with control/check hierarchy) and distinguishes from siblings by implying atomic creation of full structure, though typo 'asse' and lack of explicit differentiation slightly reduces score.

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 (e.g., add_check_to_asset) or preconditions (e.g., asset must not exist).

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