ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_get_timeline_info_retrieveRetrieve timeline information for applied controls to track status changes and review control history 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 claims the endpoint allows applied controls to be 'viewed or edited', which contradicts readOnlyHint=true on a *_retrieve operation. Beyond that contradiction it discloses nothing about auth, response shape, or why timeline info is a separate endpoint. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so structurally it is tight. However, that brevity comes from being generic boilerplate rather than front-loading useful information, so the surviving sentence does not earn its place.
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?
For a parameterless retrieve operation with no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what 'timeline info' contains and when it is preferable to the sibling timeline/dashboard endpoints. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to call this with intent.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made, but also no compensation for the unexplained absence of even an ID filter.
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 sentence 'API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited' restates the resource name from the title without stating what this specific endpoint does. It never mentions 'timeline info', the actual distinguishing verb of the tool, and dozens of siblings (get_gantt_data, get_controls_info, cascade_info, list, retrieve) share the same 'applied controls' subject, so an agent cannot tell them apart from this text.
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 guidance on when to call this instead of any other applied-controls endpoint, no prerequisites, and no mention of what problem 'timeline info' solves. An agent would have to guess between this and ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_get_gantt_data_retrieve or timeline_entries_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.