ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_sync_to_actions_retrieveRetrieves sync-to-actions details for a compliance assessment by ID, showing how assessment findings map to remediation actions for review.
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 and destructiveHint=false, yet the description states the endpoint allows assessments to be 'viewed or edited', implying a write capability. Because the description contradicts the structured safety metadata rather than supplementing it, it fails to add trustworthy behavioral context.
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, but the sole sentence is low-value boilerplate that fails to front-load any actionable information. Brevity without substance does not earn its place.
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 retrieve endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least explain what is returned or how it relates to syncing assessments to actions. Instead it gives a generic view/edit statement and omits the one behavior that differentiates the tool from its many 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 tool takes a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify what the ID refers to (a compliance assessment, an action, a UUID format, etc.). With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, the schema does not carry the meaning.
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 the resource ('compliance assessments') but the verb is the vague boilerplate 'viewed or edited', and it never mentions the distinguishing 'sync to actions' behavior embedded in the tool name. Among dozens of compliance-assessment siblings, an agent cannot tell what this endpoint uniquely does.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the closely named sibling ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_sync_to_actions_create or the general retrieve endpoints. The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.