Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

fetch_available_control_actions

Retrieve the list of available actions for a control to identify supported operations like create or update before execution.

Instructions

This tool should be used for handling control-related actions such as create, update, or to retrieve available actions for a given control.

If no control details are given use the tool "fetch_controls" to get the control details.

  1. Fetch the available actions.

  2. Prompt the user to confirm the intended action.

  3. Once confirmed, use the execute_action tool with the appropriate parameters to carry out the operation.

Args:

  • assessmentName (str): Name of the assessment (required)

  • controlNumber (str): Identifier for the control (required)

  • controlAlias (str): Alias of the control (required)

If the above arguments are not available:

  • Use the fetch_controls tool to retrieve control details.

  • Then generate and execute a query to fetch the related assessment information before proceeding.

Returns: - actions (List[ActionsVO]): List of actions - actionName (str): Action name. - actionDescription (str): Action description. - actionSpecID (str): Action specific id. - actionBindingID (str): Action binding id. - target (str): Target. - error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assessmentNameYes
controlNumberNo
controlAliasNo
evidenceNameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalRecordsNo
compliantRecordsNo
nonCompliantRecordsNo
notDeterminedRecordsNo
recordsNo
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately explains the read-only nature (fetching actions) and includes error handling in the Returns section. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or why user confirmation is needed before execution.

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-organized with clear sections for Args and Returns. The 3-step workflow is front-loaded and actionable. The Returns section is verbose (listing nested object fields) but structured. Could be more concise by removing the tautological 'This tool should be used...' opening.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but has significant gaps (missing parameter, wrong required status). The detailed Returns section is helpful but redundant since an output schema exists. The workflow guidance adds valuable context that compensates somewhat for the schema deficiencies.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. While it documents 3 parameters (assessmentName, controlNumber, controlAlias), it completely omits the 4th parameter (evidenceName). Critically, it contradicts the schema by marking controlNumber and controlAlias as 'required' when the schema shows they have default values and only assessmentName is required.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with confusing phrasing ('handling control-related actions such as create, update') that implies the tool executes mutations, when it actually only retrieves available actions. While the workflow section later clarifies this is a fetch operation, the initial ambiguity could mislead agents. It does distinguish from siblings like `fetch_controls` and `execute_action`.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: names `fetch_controls` as the alternative when control details are missing, and clearly maps the 3-step workflow (fetch → confirm → execute via `execute_action`). Also specifies fallback actions when required arguments are unavailable.

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