ciso_assistant_api_cwes_autocomplete_retrieveRetrieves CWE autocomplete suggestions from the CISO Assistant API so you can look up and select Common Weakness Enumeration entries while editing or viewing records.
API endpoint that allows CWEs 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 says the endpoint allows CWEs to be 'edited', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool mutates data.
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 with no wasted text, but its brevity comes at the cost of accuracy and usefulness. The structure is acceptable but the content is misleading.
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 parameterless autocomplete endpoint, the description should explain that it returns autocomplete suggestions for CWEs and clarify how it differs from related list/retrieve tools. It instead provides only a generic DRF endpoint description that does not support correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully documented at 100% coverage, making the baseline score appropriate.
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 CWE resource and says it can be 'viewed or edited', but it never identifies the tool's actual autocomplete behavior and does not distinguish it from siblings like cwes_list or cwes_retrieve. The phrase 'viewed or edited' is also misleading for a read-only endpoint.
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 guidance on when to use this autocomplete endpoint versus cwes_list, cwes_retrieve, or the other CWE tools. The generic 'viewed or edited' phrasing gives an agent no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.