ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_recap_retrieveRetrieve compliance assessment recaps to review status and results, and access assessment details for editing through the CISO Assistant API.
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 claims the endpoint allows assessments to be 'viewed or edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the endpoint name ends in 'retrieve'. That 'edited' capability directly contradicts the structured safety profile and could lead an agent to expect write behavior that does not exist.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy — the one clause it spends is on a misleading 'edited' claim instead of the resource's actual content.
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 parameters, the description is the only channel for explaining what a 'recap' payload contains (presumably a summarized compliance status), and it says nothing about return shape, filters, or scope. For a zero-arg, zero-output-schema read endpoint in a very dense sibling namespace, this leaves the agent unable to judge when the result is useful.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.
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's generic viewset boilerplate ('allows compliance assessments to be viewed or edited') rather than saying what the 'recap' endpoint actually returns or how it differs from the dozens of sibling compliance-assessments endpoints (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, tree, analytics). An agent learns nothing about the resource beyond the tool name.
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 indication of when to call this instead of ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_retrieve, _list, _object_retrieve, or the many recap-adjacent analytics endpoints. The agent must infer selection purely from the name suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.