ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_get_gantt_data_retrieveRetrieve Gantt chart data for applied controls to visualize timelines and scheduling in CISO Assistant.
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 description states the endpoint 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', which directly conflicts with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It adds no behavioral context beyond that misleading phrase — nothing about the shape of the Gantt payload, filtering, or access requirements.
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 padding, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity comes from being boilerplate rather than from being dense with useful information — it is under-specified, not economical.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back (Gantt/timeline data structure, grouping, date fields) and it says nothing. For a read-only analytics endpoint in a large sibling namespace, this is substantially incomplete.
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 the empty schema is self-explanatory and the description cannot add parameter detail. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 is generic DRF boilerplate: it names the resource ('applied controls') but never mentions the actual function in the tool name — returning Gantt chart data. Worse, 'viewed or edited' suggests a CRUD endpoint rather than a single-purpose read, so an agent cannot tell what this returns or how it differs from the many sibling retrieve endpoints (get_timeline_info, get_controls_info, sunburst_data, etc.).
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?
There is no indication of when to call this versus any alternative. With dozens of sibling applied-controls analytics/retrieval endpoints, the agent gets no routing signal at all — nothing about Gantt/timeline visualization use cases or the absence of parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.