ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_mss_xlsx_retrieveExport filtered applied controls in ANSSI MonServiceSécurisé XLSX format to prepare compliance reporting and submission files.
Export filtered applied controls in ANSSI MonServiceSécurisé format
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the output format, but it says 'filtered' while the input schema has zero properties, so an agent cannot tell how the filter is supplied — a mild mismatch worth flagging, though not a contradiction of 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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the action and the format. Nothing is redundant and nothing can be trimmed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter export with no output schema, the description should say that the result is a downloadable xlsx file and clarify what 'filtered' refers to given there are no filter inputs. It establishes purpose and format but leaves the return behavior and the filtering semantics unexplained.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The only gap is the unexplained 'filtered' wording, which hints at filtering behavior without any corresponding parameter.
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 pairs a specific verb (export) with a specific resource (applied controls) and a named output format (ANSSI MonServiceSécurisé xlsx). That format qualifier is what separates it from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_export_xlsx_retrieve, though the sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the format name: call this when the deliverable must be an MSS/ANSSI-format workbook rather than the generic xlsx export or the CSV export. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (export_xlsx, export_csv), so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.