ciso_assistant_api_assets_security_objectives_retrieveRetrieve security objectives associated with assets to inspect compliance targets and support risk assessment.
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, yet the description says assets may be "edited" through this endpoint. That is a direct contradiction, and no other behavioral context (scope, response shape, permissions) is offered.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no bloat, but the one sentence spent is generic boilerplate rather than front-loading the distinguishing information (security objectives).
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read endpoint the bar is modest, but the description never explains what a "security objective" is, what it returns, or how it relates to assets. The only usable signal is the tool name.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies, with no parameter-related gap to penalize.
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 generic DRF boilerplate ("allows assets to be viewed or edited") and never mentions "security objectives," which is the specific sub-resource in the tool name. An agent cannot tell this apart from ciso_assistant_api_assets_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_assets_object_retrieve based on the description.
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 about when to use this endpoint versus the many sibling asset endpoints, and the phrase "viewed or edited" actively suggests a write capability the tool does not have. That misdirection could lead an agent to use it as a mutation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.