ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_status_retrieveRetrieve the current status of compliance campaigns through the CISO Assistant API to monitor progress and identify campaigns needing attention.
api_campaigns_status_retrieve
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context at all — not what 'status' means here (campaign statuses vs. a job/execution status), not the response shape, and not any auth or scoping notes.
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 short, but only because it says nothing — the single token is not front-loaded content, it is an identifier with no informative sentences behind it.
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 no explanatory text, an agent has no idea what this endpoint actually returns or when to prefer it over campaigns_retrieve/campaigns_metrics_retrieve. For a status-retrieval tool with zero structured documentation of the response, the description needed to do real work and does none.
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 schema cannot document anything and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts on this dimension.
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 is literally the operation ID repeated ('api_campaigns_status_retrieve'), which restates the name rather than explaining the purpose. An agent can infer from the name that it retrieves campaign status data, but the description contributes nothing beyond that, and does not distinguish it from campaigns_metrics_retrieve or campaigns_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 indication of when to use this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from the many sibling campaign endpoints (list, retrieve, metrics, object_retrieve). The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.