Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

get_top_non_compliant_controls_detail

Fetch details of non-compliant controls including ownership, scores, and priority levels to identify remediation targets across specific compliance periods.

Instructions

Function overview: Fetch control with low compliant score or non compliant controls. Arguments:

  1. period: Compliance period which denotes quarter of the year whose dashboard data is needed. By default: Q1 2024.

  2. count:

  3. page: If the user asks of next page use smartly decide the page.

Returns:

  • controls (List[NonCompliantControlVO]): A list of non-compliant controls.

    • name (str): Name of the control.

    • lastAssignedTo (List[UserVO]): List of users to whom the control was last assigned.

      • emailid (str): Email ID of the assigned user.

    • score (float): Score assigned to the control.

    • priority (str): Priority level of the control.

  • error (Optional[str]): An error message if any issues occurred during retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodYes
countNo
pageNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
controlsNo
errorNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, description effectively discloses return structure including nested fields (UserVO, emailid) and error handling.

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?

Uses redundant headers ('Function overview:') but maintains readable structure with clear Arguments/Returns sections.

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?

Adequate given output schema exists, but gaps remain: 'count' parameter unexplained and no differentiation from numerous sibling control-fetching tools.

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?

Compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining 'period' (quarters) and 'page' (pagination logic), but completely omits semantics for 'count' parameter.

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?

States specific action (Fetch) and resource (controls with low/non-compliant scores), though could better differentiate from sibling 'get_top_over_due_controls_detail'.

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?

Provides only a pagination hint ('smartly decide the page') but lacks when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternative control-fetching tools.

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