ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_object_retrieveRetrieve a compliance assessment by ID to view or edit its details. Fetch assessment records for GRC tracking and audit workflows.
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 annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the endpoint allows compliance assessments to be 'edited', directly contradicting the read-only safety profile. This is a serious inconsistency that could cause an agent to attempt or expect mutation behavior from a retrieve endpoint.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted text. However, it is under-specified rather than effectively front-loaded, since the key operation and scope are not clarified.
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 retrieve-by-ID tool, the definition should at least clarify that it returns a single compliance assessment object. Instead it is ambiguous about viewing versus editing and omits any return-value context, though annotations do cover safety traits.
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 schema has one required parameter, 'id', with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about what the ID represents or how it should be supplied. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 names the resource ('compliance assessments') but gives only a vague operation ('viewed or edited'), which does not make clear that this tool retrieves a single object by ID. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling retrieve/list/update tools for the same resource.
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 tool versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_list, or update operations. The only usage framing is the vague 'viewed or edited' phrase, which is insufficient for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.