Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

fetch_rule_design_notes

Retrieve existing design notes for compliance rules to review technical documentation or initiate creation workflows when none are found.

Instructions

Fetch and manage design notes for a rule.

WORKFLOW:

  1. CHECK EXISTING NOTES:

  • Always check if design notes exist for the rule first (whether user wants to create or view)

  • If found: Present complete notebook to user in readable format

  • If not found: Offer to create new ones

  1. IF NOTES EXIST:

  • Show complete notebook with all sections (this serves as the VIEW)

  • Ask: "Here are your design notes. Modify or regenerate?"

  1. USER OPTIONS:

  • MODIFY:

  1. Ask "Do you need any changes to the design notes?"

  2. If no changes needed: Get user confirmation, then call create_design_notes() to update

  3. If changes needed: Collect modifications, show preview, get confirmation, then call create_design_notes() to update

  • REGENERATE:

  1. Generate the design notes using generate_design_notes_preview()

  2. Show preview to user

  3. Get user confirmation

  4. If confirmed: Call create_design_notes() to save the regenerated design notes

  • CANCEL: End workflow

  1. IF NO NOTES EXIST:

  • Inform user no design notes found

  • Ask: "Create comprehensive design notes for this rule?"

  • If yes: Generate the design notes using generate_design_notes_preview()

  • Show preview to user

  • Get user confirmation

  • If confirmed: Call create_design_notes() to generate

KEY RULES:

  • MUST follow this workflow explicitly step by step

  • Always check for existing notes first whenever user asks about design notes (create or view)

  • ALWAYS get user confirmation before calling create_design_notes()

  • If any updates needed, explicitly call create_design_notes() tool to save changes

  • Present notes in Python notebook format

  • Use create_design_notes() for creation and updates

Args: rule_name: Name of the rule

Returns: Dict with success status, rule name, design notes content, and error details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It documents the conversational workflow behavior thoroughly (presentation format, user confirmation requirements) but fails to explicitly declare safety properties (read-only vs destructive) or side effects. The Args/Returns section clarifies return structure somewhat.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely verbose (multi-step workflow document rather than tool description). The content is valuable but misplaced—workflow orchestration instructions belong in system prompts, not tool descriptions. Structure mixes narrative workflow with technical Args/Returns sections, creating cognitive load for the agent selecting the tool.

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?

Attempts completeness by covering workflow, parameters, and return values, but conflates agent conversation flow with tool capability description. Given the complexity (orchestrating multiple sibling tools) and lack of annotations, it needs the detail provided, though better structured as 'Retrieves design notes; returns dict with content or null if absent' rather than a workflow script.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'rule_name' parameter. The description compensates by documenting it as 'Name of the rule' in the Args section. While basic, this is sufficient for a single required string parameter when no schema descriptions exist.

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 opening line states 'Fetch and manage design notes for a rule,' which identifies the resource (design notes) and action (fetch). While 'manage' is slightly misleading since the tool delegates creation to siblings (create_design_notes), the detailed workflow clarifies that this tool primarily retrieves and presents existing notes.

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?

Provides extensive explicit workflow guidance including step-by-step instructions (CHECK EXISTING NOTES → IF NOTES EXIST → USER OPTIONS). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming create_design_notes() and generate_design_notes_preview() as alternatives for updates and regeneration, and states 'Always check for existing notes first whenever user asks about design notes.'

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