ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_runs_export_retrieveExport a questionnaire run as an XLSX copy of the original file with response and comment columns, so you can review answers and feedback in one spreadsheet.
Stream a copy of the original xlsx with response/comment columns
| 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 needs no restating. The description does add genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the output is 'streamed' and is a binary xlsx with appended response/comment columns. It stops short of saying what content type or encoding the stream arrives in, which matters for handling the result.
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 filler, and the key fact (xlsx with response/comment columns) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that useful details were cut rather than omitted for brevity.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is minimally adequate: the agent knows it gets a streamed xlsx. But the parameter meaning and the streaming/response handling are undocumented, which for a binary export is a real gap.
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% — the single 'id' property has no description at all — so the description must carry the meaning. It never mentions the parameter, leaving the agent to guess whether id is a questionnaire run id, a session id, or a file id.
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?
States a specific verb ('Stream') and resource ('a copy of the original xlsx with response/comment columns'), which tells an agent this returns the source spreadsheet enriched with answers, not a JSON record. It never names the questionnaire run itself, so the resource context comes from the tool name rather than the description, and no sibling export (e.g. other *_export_xlsx_retrieve tools) is distinguished.
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 on when to use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_runs_retrieve or object_retrieve, and no note that it requires a run created from an uploaded xlsx. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.