ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade preview information for compliance assessments to understand dependencies and impacts before making changes.
Cascade preview:
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what a 'cascade' result contains (dependent objects, counts, blockers) or that it is purely informational — the single word 'preview' is the only behavioral clue.
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?
Two words are certainly concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy — the fragment ends in a colon as if a list should follow, which is confusing rather than front-loaded.
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?
No output schema and no meaningful description; for a cascade/dependency-preview endpoint whose entire value is the shape of its return payload, nothing is communicated about what comes back or what the id refers to. The definition is not sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say what that id identifies (presumably the compliance assessment PK) or its format. With no compensating text, the agent is left guessing the identifier type.
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 essentially the title restated: 'Cascade preview:' tells an agent nothing beyond the phrase already embedded in the tool name. It never states that it retrieves the set of objects that would be affected (cascaded to) by a compliance assessment, nor how that differs from sibling cascade_info_retrieve tools for other resources.
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?
'Cascade preview' weakly implies a pre-deletion/preview use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the far more numerous siblings (e.g. the plain retrieve, list, or object_retrieve variants) that an agent must choose between. All routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.