Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

by ComplianceCow
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_dashboard_data

Retrieve quarterly dashboard data to track Common Control Framework compliance status across categories and frameworks. Monitor control assignments, view completion metrics, and analyze compliance percentages for specific periods.

Instructions

Function accepts compliance period as 'period'. Period denotes for which quarter of year dashboard data is needed. Format: Q1 2024.

Dashboard contains summary data of Common Control Framework (CCF). For any related to contorl category, framework, assignment status use this function. This contains details of control status such as 'Completed', 'In Progress', 'Overdue', 'Pending'. The summarization levels are 'overall control status', 'control category wise', 'control framework wise', 'overall control status' can be fetched from 'controlStatus' 'control category wise' can be fetched from 'controlSummary' 'control framework wise' can be fetched from 'frameworks'

Args: - period (str) - Period denotes for which quarter of year dashboard data is needed. Format: Q1 2024.

Returns: - totalControls (int): Total number of controls in the dashboard. - controlStatus (List[ComplianceStatusSummaryVO]): Summary of control statuses. - status (str): Compliance status of the control. - count (int): Number of controls with the given status. - controlAssignmentStatus (List[ControlAssignmentStatusVO]): Assignment status categorized by control. - categoryName (str): Name of the control category. - controlStatus (List[ComplianceStatusSummaryVO]): Status summary within the category. - status (str): Compliance status. - count (int): Number of controls with this status. - compliancePCT (float): Overall compliance percentage across all controls. - controlSummary (List[ControlSummaryVO]): Detailed summary of each control. - category (str): Category name of the control. - status (str): Compliance status of the control. - dueDate (str): Due date for the control, if applicable. - compliancePCT (float): Compliance percentage for the control. - leafControls (int): Number of leaf-level controls in the category. - complianceStatusSummary (List[ComplianceStatusSummaryVO]): Summary of control statuses. - status (str): Compliance status. - count (int): Number of controls with the given status. - error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoQ1 2024

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalControlsNo
controlStatusNo
controlAssignmentStatusNo
compliancePCTNo
controlSummaryNo
complianceStatusSummaryNo
frameworksNo
errorNo

Tool Definition Quality

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Explains the domain context (CCF summary data, status types) but lacks operational details like caching, rate limits, or side effects; no contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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?

Verbose with redundant 'Returns' section duplicating output schema; weak opening ('Function accepts...'); contains typos ('contorl'); key purpose buried in middle.

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?

Valuable mapping of business concepts to return fields (e.g., 'control category wise' maps to 'controlSummary') clarifies the output structure despite existing output schema.

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?

Compensates well for 0% schema coverage by clearly defining the 'period' parameter's format (Q1 2024) and semantic meaning (quarter of year).

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?

States it retrieves CCF dashboard summary data and mentions control categories/frameworks, but fails to clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch_dashboard_framework_summary' or 'get_dashboard_common_controls_details'.

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?

Implies usage ('For any related to control category... use this function') but provides no guidance on when to use specific sibling dashboard tools instead, nor explicit exclusions.

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