ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_studies_retrieveRetrieves a single quantitative risk study (CRQ) by ID from CISO Assistant, returning the study with unauthorized fields masked so authorized users can review risk data.
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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still contributes real information: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. That is a non-obvious behavioral trait an agent could otherwise misread as missing data. It does not say what happens on an unknown/unauthorized id (404 vs masked), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the space saved is spent on the masking detail rather than the purpose. Structure is fine; the content is under-specified rather than verbose.
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 only an `id` in the input, the description does convey the one notable response trait (masking), but leaves out what a quantitative risk study record contains and how failures surface. Adequate for a simple read endpoint, not more.
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% and the single required `id` parameter gets no explanation in the description — not the identifier type/format (UUID vs ref_id) nor where to obtain it. For a one-parameter tool this is recoverable, but the description completely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"Return a single object" essentially restates "retrieve" from the tool name and title; the description never names the resource (a quantitative risk study) or says what the object represents. The only distinguishing content is the masking clause, which describes an implementation detail rather than the tool's purpose. An agent must rely on the tool name and the sibling list to infer this is a get-by-id for CRQ quantitative risk studies.
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 statement of when to use this versus the many CRQ siblings (e.g. `..._object_retrieve`, `..._list`, `..._cascade_info_retrieve`, `..._key_metrics_retrieve`). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no note that the caller must already hold an id (obtained from the list endpoint).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.