Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

fetch_dashboard_framework_summary

Retrieve a compliance dashboard summary for a specified period and common control framework, providing control statuses, assignments, due dates, and scores for audit and tracking.

Instructions

Function Overview: CCF Dashboard Summary Retrieval

This function returns a summary dashboard for a specified compliance period and Common Control Framework (CCF). It is designed to provide a high-level view of control statuses within a given framework and period, making it useful for compliance tracking, reporting, and audits.

Args:

  • period:
    The compliance quarter for which the dashboard data is requested.
    Format: "Q1 2024"

  • framework_name:
    The name of the Common Control Framework whose data is to be retrieved.

Dashboard Overview

The dashboard provides a consolidated view of all controls under the specified framework and period. It includes key information such as assignment status, compliance progress, due dates, and risk scoring to help stakeholders monitor and manage compliance posture.

Returns: - controls (List[FramworkControlVO]): A list of framework controls. - name (str): Name of the control. - assignedTo (str): Email ID of the user the control is assigned to. - assignmentStatus (str): Status of the control assignment. - complianceStatus (str): Compliance status of the control. - dueDate (str): Due date for completing the control. - score (float): Score assigned to the control. - priority (str): Priority level of the control. - page (int): Current page number in the overall result set. - totalPage (int): Total number of pages. - totalItems (int): Total number of items. - error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodYes
framework_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
controlsNo
pageNo
totalPageNo
totalItemsNo
errorNo
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 read-only nature and return structure, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Overview, but is verbose and could be more concise. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, but some details are redundant.

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 simple input schema (2 string params) and the presence of an output schema in the description, the description is fairly complete. It explains purpose, parameters, and return values, though it lacks details on pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: period format (e.g., 'Q1 2024') and framework_name explanation. This significantly aids the agent in providing correct values.

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 it returns a summary dashboard for a compliance period and CCF, with a high-level view of control statuses. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_dashboard_framework_controls, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description mentions it is useful for compliance tracking, reporting, and audits, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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