ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_ro_to_pertinence_retrieveRetrieves EBIOS RM risk-origin-to-pertinence mappings from CISO Assistant so you can evaluate and prioritize risk scenarios.
api_ebios_rm_ro_to_pertinence_retrieve
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what is returned, whether the result is scoped to a study, or what 'pertinence' evaluation entails. It does not contradict the annotations, so it avoids a 1.
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?
A single token repeated from the name: no wasted words, but the size reflects under-specification rather than concision. There is no front-loading of intent because there is no content to front-load.
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 an agent this is essentially un-callable with intent: no output schema exists to explain the return value, and the description does not say what data comes back from a 'pertinence' endpoint in the EBIOS RM risk-analysis model. Nothing an agent needs in order to use it correctly is present.
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 input schema has zero properties and additionalProperties=false, so there are no parameters whose semantics the description could clarify. Zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name ('api_ebios_rm_ro_to_pertinence_retrieve'), which is a raw auto-generated route string rather than a human-readable verb+resource. It signals a read ('retrieve') of something called 'pertinence' under EBIOS RM RO/TO, but never explains what a pertinence object is or does. This is textbook tautology.
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, no prerequisites, no alternatives. The sibling list contains near-identical endpoints (ro_to_retrieve, ro_to_object_retrieve, ro_to_list, ro_to_cascade_info_retrieve, ro_to_motivation_retrieve, ro_to_resources_retrieve, ro_to_activity_retrieve), and the description gives an agent no basis to choose among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.