Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

create_asset_and_check

Create a compliance asset with an initial control and check structure to establish a hierarchy for monitoring and audits.

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

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details the hierarchical creation, parameter constraints (checkName format), and return values. It lacks info on idempotency or error details.

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?

Well-structured with bullet under 'Args', front-loaded with main purpose. Minor typo ('asse' instead of 'asset') slightly reduces clarity.

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 4 params, no annotations, and implied output schema, description is quite complete. Covers hierarchy, parameters, and returns. Missing context like authentication or error scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides clear meaning for all four parameters, including format constraint for checkName, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it creates a new asset with a hierarchical control and check structure. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_check_to_asset' by emphasizing creation of the full hierarchy.

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 implies usage for creating a new asset with initial structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'add_check_to_asset'. No when-not or exclusion conditions provided.

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