ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_object_retrieveRetrieve a specific indexed document by its ID to review or verify document content stored for chat and compliance workflows.
ViewSet for managing indexed documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description adds nothing on top. It does not say what an indexed document contains, whether indexing status matters, or whether a missing id errors or returns empty — the details an agent actually needs.
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 padding, so it is concise. But the terseness comes from being content-free rather than from editing, so conciseness here does not earn a high score.
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 one undocumented required parameter, no output schema, and no return-value description, an agent has no way to know what it will receive or how to supply the id. The annotations cover only safety, leaving scope, parameter type, and response shape completely unspecified.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single required `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not indicate whether the id is a UUID, integer, or document slug, nor what happens with an unknown id — a real gap for a path-parameter retrieve.
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 a generic ViewSet docstring, "ViewSet for managing indexed documents," which restates the class rather than stating what this endpoint does. It never says it retrieves a single indexed document by id, and it is indistinguishable in wording from the sibling create/update/list/destroy chat_documents tools.
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 guidance on when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_list or ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_retrieve. The word "managing" actively muddies things by implying a broader admin scope than a single-object read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.