ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_progress_ts_retrieveRetrieve the progress timestamp for a specific compliance assessment using its ID to track assessment status and update timing.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint allows compliance assessments to be 'edited,' which contradicts the read-only contract. No additional behavioral context such as auth needs or response behavior is provided.
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 definition is a single brief sentence with no wasted structure, but the sentence is generic boilerplate. It is concise and front-loaded, though it carries very little useful 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?
For a one-parameter retrieve tool, the description should at least clarify the progress_ts resource and the id argument. With no output schema, it also leaves the return shape implicit, making the definition too thin to guide correct invocation.
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 sole required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies what kind of ID is expected or what object it references. No semantic value is added beyond the raw string 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 identifies the broad resource (compliance assessments) but never explains the 'progress_ts' scope of this endpoint. It says assessments can be 'viewed or edited' instead of stating a specific retrieve operation, so it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling compliance-assessments retrieval tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The vague 'viewed or edited' phrase does not help an agent choose this tool over the numerous sibling compliance-assessment endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.