ciso_assistant_api_assets_disaster_recovery_objectives_retrieveRetrieve disaster recovery objectives for assets to view or edit them, enabling effective disaster recovery planning and asset management.
API endpoint that allows assets 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint allows assets to be "viewed or edited" — the "edited" half contradicts the read-only profile. The description adds no genuine behavioral context such as whether the objectives are scoped to a single asset or returned globally.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, but it is boilerplate rather than front-loaded substance — brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.
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 output schema and no annotations describing return content, the description should say what disaster recovery objectives are returned and in what shape. It instead describes a different, generic asset resource, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.
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 is an empty object with zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies; the only missed opportunity is noting that no asset identifier is accepted.
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 "API endpoint that allows assets to be viewed or edited" is a generic DRF boilerplate line that never mentions disaster recovery objectives, the actual resource in the tool name. It fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling asset endpoints (assets_retrieve, assets_security_objectives_retrieve, assets_dora_*_retrieve).
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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite dozens of overlapping asset retrieval siblings. An agent has no signal for choosing this over ciso_assistant_api_assets_security_objectives_retrieve or assets_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.