ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_owner_retrieveRetrieve the owner associated with an applied control via the CISO Assistant API to view accountability and support control management.
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 controls to be 'viewed or edited', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. It also omits any owner-specific behavior (what owner data is returned).
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?
The single sentence is short and front-loaded, but its wording is inaccurate ('edited') and it omits the key 'owner' qualifier, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.
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 read-only retrieve in a large API, the description should at least explain that it returns owner information for applied controls. Instead it provides only a generic endpoint statement that could apply to any CRUD tool, leaving the agent unable to distinguish its purpose.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level misinformation is present.
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 names the resource ('applied controls') but the verb is ambiguous ('viewed or edited') and it never mentions the 'owner' aspect that distinguishes this endpoint from siblings like applied_controls_retrieve and applied_controls_list. It reads as a generic auto-generated endpoint blurb rather than a specific retrieve operation.
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 use this endpoint versus the numerous sibling tools (e.g., applied_controls_retrieve, applied_controls_list, applied_controls_object_retrieve). The mention of 'edited' actively misroutes the agent away from what is a read-only owner retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.