ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_control_impact_retrieveRetrieves the impact assessment for an applied control in CISO Assistant, helping users review how that control affects compliance and risk posture.
API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'viewed or edited' implies a write capability while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is misleading for this specific retrieve endpoint. Nothing is disclosed about what data is returned or what 'impact' means, so the description actively confuses rather than clarifies beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler, but it is boilerplate rather than front-loaded information. It is concise only because it says almost nothing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is the only channel for explaining what this resource is. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unable to tell what 'control impact' returns or how it differs from sibling impact endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level value is possible or needed here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the endpoint name ('applied controls ... viewed or edited') without explaining what the 'control impact' resource is or what a retrieve returns. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling impact endpoints such as impact_effort_retrieve, impact_graph_retrieve, or the analogous policies_control_impact_retrieve.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus any of the dozens of adjacent applied_controls retrieval/impact tools. An agent has no basis for selecting it over impact_effort_retrieve or the plain retrieve endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.