ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_per_status_retrieveRetrieves compliance assessments grouped by status from CISO Assistant, letting you view or edit assessment records to track compliance progress across your GRC program.
API endpoint that allows compliance assessments to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the resource can be 'viewed or edited', which contradicts the annotations' readOnlyHint=true. With no annotations-based gap to fill here (safety profile is fully declared), the description instead introduces a claim of writability that the annotations deny. It also discloses nothing about the aggregation semantics the endpoint name implies.
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 structurally it is front-loaded and waste-free. However, the brevity comes from generic DRF boilerplate rather than from compression of real information.
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 no annotation-driven safety gaps, the description carries the full burden of explaining what this endpoint actually returns. It fails: nothing indicates that the response is a status breakdown rather than a plain object or list, leaving the agent unable to predict the result shape.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline rule for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter information is missing or wrong.
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 restates the title almost verbatim ('compliance assessments ... viewed or edited') without explaining the distinguishing element of the endpoint: the 'per_status' grouping. It never says whether this returns counts aggregated by status or a filtered list. An agent cannot tell it apart from siblings such as compliance_assessments_status_retrieve or compliance_assessments_list based on this text.
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 indication of when this endpoint should be chosen over the dozens of sibling compliance-assessment endpoints (list, retrieve, status_retrieve, global_score_retrieve, analytics_retrieve). No prerequisites, no mention of what identifiers or filters are implied by 'per status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.