ciso_assistant_api_assets_autocomplete_retrieveRetrieve autocomplete asset options for CISO Assistant select fields, skipping graph traversal to return quick lookup results.
Minimal endpoint for autocomplete selects — skips graph traversal.
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — that the response is minimal and omits graph traversal — but stops short of saying what the payload actually contains (ids, labels, truncation/pagination).
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 the operative distinction ('skips graph traversal') front-loaded. Only mild redundancy in the phrase 'minimal endpoint', which is largely restated by the trailing clause.
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, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description should clarify the return shape and how an autocomplete endpoint with no search term behaves (full list? capped?). That information is absent, leaving the agent unsure what it will get back.
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 parameter-semantics baseline is 4. There is nothing schema-side to compensate for, and the description does not misrepresent the (empty) input surface.
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 conveys the intent (an autocomplete/lookup endpoint that is deliberately lightweight) and hints at differentiators via 'skips graph traversal', but it never names the resource (assets) or the return shape — the agent must infer 'assets' from the tool name. It is a vague-purpose statement rather than a specific verb+resource.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no siblings are named. The agent is left to infer that this should be preferred over ciso_assistant_api_assets_list or ciso_assistant_api_assets_retrieve for select/picker use cases, which is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.