Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

by ComplianceCow
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_task_details

Retrieve detailed task analysis including input/output specifications, template-based inputs, and metadata for compliance rule structure creation.

Instructions

Tool-based version of get_task_details for improved compatibility.

DETAILED TASK ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS:

  • Use this tool if the tasks://details/{task_name} resource is not accessible

  • Extract complete input/output specifications with template information

  • Review detailed capabilities and requirements from the full README

  • Identify template-based inputs (those with the templateFile property)

  • Analyze appTags to determine the application type

  • Review all metadata and configuration options

  • Use this information for accurate task matching and rule structure creation

INTENTION-BASED OUTPUT CHAINING:

  • ANALYZE output purpose: Is this meant for direct user consumption or further processing?

  • ASSESS completion level: Does this output fulfill the user's end goal or serve as a stepping stone?

  • EVALUATE consolidation needs: Are multiple outputs meant to be combined for complete picture?

  • DETERMINE transformation requirements: Does raw output need formatting for usability?

WORKFLOW GAP DETECTION:

  • IDENTIFY outputs that represent partial solutions to user problems

  • DETECT outputs that split information requiring reunification

  • RECOGNIZE outputs that extract data without presenting insights

  • FLAG outputs that validate without providing actionable summaries

COMPLETION INTENTION MATCHING:

  • SUGGEST tasks that transform intermediate outputs into final deliverables

  • RECOMMEND tasks that consolidate split information into unified reports

  • PROPOSE tasks that add analysis layer to raw validation results

  • ENSURE suggested tasks align with user's stated end goals

IMPORTANT (MANDATORY BEHAVIOR): If the requested task is not found with the user's specification, the system MUST:

  1. Prompt the user to choose how to proceed including the below option.

  • Option: Create task development Ticket.

  1. Wait for the user's response before taking any further action.

  2. If the user chooses to create a task development ticket, call create_support_ticket() via the MCP tool, collecting the required input details from the user before submitting.

Args: task_name: The name of the task for which to retrieve details

Returns: A dictionary containing the complete task information if found, OR executes the user-selected alternative approach, OR creates a support ticket (with collected details) if chosen

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Tool Definition Quality

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the return behavior (dictionary with task info or alternative actions) and the mandatory not-found process. However, much of the description comprises abstract workflow instructions (e.g., 'INTENTION-BASED OUTPUT CHAINING') that are not specific to the tool's behavior, reducing clarity.

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?

The description is excessively long (over 300 words) and contains multiple verbose sections (e.g., 'DETAILED TASK ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS', 'INTENTION-BASED OUTPUT CHAINING') that are not directly about the tool's operation. Much of this content seems like generic agent workflow guidance rather than tool-specific documentation. This lack of conciseness harms usability.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description covers basic usage and the important not-found case. It mentions aspects like template information and appTags in the analysis section, but the structure is cluttered. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI to use the tool, though not ideally.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'task_name'. The description adds a one-line explanation: 'The name of the task for which to retrieve details', which provides basic meaning. This is adequate but minimal, especially given the low schema coverage.

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 that the tool retrieves task details for a given task name, with the opening line establishing it as a tool-based version for improved compatibility. However, the main purpose is somewhat diluted by extensive workflow instructions that obscure the core functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a dedicated 'IMPORTANT (MANDATORY BEHAVIOR)' section that explains how to handle cases where the task is not found, including prompting the user and optionally creating a support ticket. It also mentions using this tool if the tasks://details resource is inaccessible. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over its many sibling tools and does not specify when not to use it.

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