ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_soa_retrieveRetrieve a compliance assessment's Statement of Applicability requirement tree, enriched with applied controls, to review control coverage and requirements.
Returns the requirement tree enriched with applied controls and
| 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine content information by stating the result is a requirement tree 'enriched with applied controls,' but the sentence truncates before saying what else it enriches with, leaving the payload description incomplete.
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 text is short, but it is not concise — it is unfinished, ending on a dangling conjunction. A truncated sentence is under-specification rather than economy of words.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it only partially does before breaking off. Combined with an undocumented required id, an agent lacks what it needs to call this endpoint confidently given the many near-identical tree retrieval siblings.
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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning. The description never mentions the parameter, so it is ambiguous whether the id refers to the compliance assessment, a requirement node, or a SoA record — a distinction that materially affects the call.
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 a verb and resource ("Returns the requirement tree enriched with applied controls"), which conveys the general shape of the output. However, it is cut off mid-sentence at "and," so the stated purpose is incomplete, and nothing distinguishes it from closely related siblings such as compliance_assessments_tree_retrieve, combined_tree_retrieve, or requirements_list_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?
No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative endpoint is named. With a large family of overlapping tree/requirement retrieval siblings, the agent has no basis for choosing this one over compliance_assessments_tree_retrieve or combined_tree_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.