ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_donut_data_retrieveRetrieves donut chart data for a specific compliance assessment by ID, enabling visualization of assessment status distribution and progress.
API endpoint that allows compliance assessments to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description says compliance assessments can be 'viewed or edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction: an agent may infer a write capability that the tool does not have. The read-only, idempotent nature of the donut-data endpoint is not correctly disclosed.
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 only one sentence, but the sentence is generic and misleading rather than informative. Brevity does not help because the content does not accurately describe the endpoint.
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 output schema and an undocumented required id, the description should explain what donut data is returned and how the id is used. Instead it gives a generic and contradictory view/edit statement that leaves an agent unable to call the tool confidently.
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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about what the id identifies or its expected format. Because coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
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 only says it is an API endpoint that allows compliance assessments to be 'viewed or edited', which restates the resource without identifying the specific 'donut data' retrieval behavior encoded in the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling compliance-assessment retrieval endpoints.
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 endpoint versus alternatives such as compliance_assessments_retrieve, compliance_assessments_list, or other chart-data endpoints. The mention of 'viewed or edited' actively blurs whether this is a read-only retrieval operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.