Skip to main content
Glama
ComplianceCow

ComplianceCow MCP Server

update_control_note

Update an existing documentation note on a compliance control. Preview changes before saving, or confirm to permanently update the note.

Instructions

Update an existing documentation note on a control.

✅ PURPOSE This tool updates an existing note that was previously created on a control. It allows modification of the note content, topic, or both.

✅ CONFIRMATION-BASED SAFETY FLOW

  • When confirm=False: → The tool returns a PREVIEW of the updated markdown note. → The user may edit the note before confirming.

  • When confirm=True: → The note is permanently updated and saved.

Args: controlId (str): The control ID where the note exists (required). noteId (str): The note ID to update (required). assessmentId (str): The assessment ID or asset ID that contains the control (required). notes (str): The updated documentation content in MARKDOWN format (required). topic (str, optional): Updated topic or subject of the note. confirm (bool, optional):
- False → Preview only (default, no persistence) - True → Update and permanently save the note

Returns: Dict with success status and note data: - success (bool): Whether the request was successful - message (str, optional): Success or error message - noteId (str, optional): Updated note ID - error (str, optional): Error message if request failed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
controlIdYes
noteIdYes
assessmentIdYes
notesYes
topicYes
confirmNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must cover all behavioral traits. It discloses the preview vs. save behavior, the markdown format requirement, and the return structure. It is transparent but could mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and emoji highlights. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. The most critical information (purpose and safety flow) is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the safety flow, parameter meanings, and return format. It is fairly comprehensive but could clarify error handling or preconditions (e.g., note existence). Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including purpose, required status, and optional details (e.g., topic, confirm defaults). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Update an existing documentation note on a control.' It uses a specific verb ('update'), identifies the resource ('documentation note on a control'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_control_note' and 'list_control_notes.'

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear guidance on the confirm parameter, explaining when to use preview vs. permanent save. It also describes a 'confirmation-based safety flow.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.

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