ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_to_review_retrieveRetrieve applied controls awaiting review to inspect their review status and guide follow-up actions.
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', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is an auto-generated ViewSet docstring that misdescribes a read-only retrieve route as supporting edits.
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 verbose. Its brevity is undermined only by being generic boilerplate rather than by length.
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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of semantics, yet it omits what 'to review' means (which statuses, which assignment criteria), whether results are paginated, and what fields come back. For a filtered-list endpoint in a large sibling set, that leaves the agent guessing.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 generic resource (applied controls) but never explains the 'to review' scope that distinguishes this endpoint from applied_controls_list or applied_controls_retrieve. It is essentially boilerplate that repeats the resource name without stating what is actually returned.
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 endpoint instead of the many sibling applied-controls tools (list, retrieve, todo, per_status, to_review). It does not even hint that results are scoped to controls awaiting review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.