Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

by ComplianceCow
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

create_support_ticket

Create support tickets only after user reviews and approves both plain-text and HTML-formatted descriptions, ensuring accuracy and reducing errors.

Instructions

PURPOSE:

  • Create structured support tickets only after strict user review and explicit approval of all descriptions.

  • Ticket creation MUST NOT occur without explicit user confirmation at every required step.

  • Reduce user input errors and rework by ensuring clarity and completeness before ticket submission.

MANDATORY CONDITIONS — NO STEP MAY BE SKIPPED OR BYPASSED:

  1. BEFORE TOOL ENTRY:

  • The tool MUST generate a detailed, pre-filled plain-text description for the task or workflow.

  • The user MUST review this description carefully.

  • Ticket creation MUST be blocked until the user explicitly APPROVES this description.

  1. USER VERIFICATION:

  • The user MUST be presented with the full pre-filled description.

  • The user MUST either confirm its correctness or provide feedback for changes.

  • The tool MUST update the description and priority per feedback and repeat this verification step as many times as needed.

  • Skipping or auto-approving this step is strictly prohibited.

  1. FINAL APPROVAL & FORMATTING:

  • After user approval of the plain text, the description MUST be converted into professional HTML format (bold headings, clear structure, spacing).

  • The user MUST explicitly approve this final HTML-formatted description.

  • The tool MUST block ticket creation until this final approval is given.

  • Only the fully user-approved, HTML-formatted description MAY be used to create the support ticket.

IMPORTANT:
Under no circumstances shall the tool proceed to ticket creation without explicit user approval at all mandatory steps.
The process must strictly enforce these approvals, preventing any premature or automatic ticket submissions.

MANDATORY USER INPUTS:

  • subject (str) — ticket title.

  • description (str) — final user-approved, HTML-formatted description.

  • priority (str) — ticket priority level.
    Valid values: "High", "Medium", "Low" (case-sensitive).
    The user MUST provide one of these values to proceed.

RETURNS:

  • A dictionary simulating the ticket creation response for integration or testing purposes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYes
descriptionYes
priorityYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Tool Definition Quality

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes intended agent behavior (generating descriptions, blocking creation) rather than actual tool behavior, which may mislead. It adds some context but is more about process than tool capabilities.

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?

The description is verbose and repetitive, with multiple bullet sections. It is structured but could be more concise. Several sentences rephrase the same idea of mandatory user approval.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no enums, the description thoroughly covers the workflow and output. It mentions the return type (dictionary) and provides all necessary context for correct usage, though it overemphasizes process.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: subject as title, description as HTML-formatted and user-approved, priority with valid case-sensitive values (High, Medium, Low). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates support tickets after user review. It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing a strict approval workflow, though no direct sibling comparison is made.

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 provides explicit mandatory conditions and steps, including when to use (after user approval) and when not to use (without approval). It does not compare to alternatives but offers clear context.

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