ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_retrieveRetrieve a single compliance assessment by ID while masking unauthorized related fields, enabling secure access to GRC assessment details.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds a non-annotation detail that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is useful, but it omits authentication requirements, not-found behavior, and whether masking depends on the caller's permissions.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being efficient.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain the returned object's shape, but it only notes masked related fields. For a retrieve endpoint with an undocumented ID parameter, the agent lacks field-level, error, and return-value details.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' string parameter, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about what the ID identifies, expected format, or whether it is a compliance assessment ID.
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 says only 'Return a single object', without naming the compliance assessment resource. The tool name and title imply the resource, but the description itself is vague and does not distinguish this retrieve from siblings such as compliance_assessments_list or compliance_assessments_object_retrieve.
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 to use this tool versus alternatives like the list, object_retrieve, or recap_retrieve endpoints. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.