ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_retrieveRetrieve a specific EBIOS RM stakeholder by ID with unauthorized fields masked to review stakeholder details for risk assessments.
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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavior beyond them: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. It stops there, saying nothing about what happens on a missing or forbidden id.
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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than efficient: the sentence spends its length on masking behavior while omitting the subject of the operation.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only place return-shape context could live, and it gives none beyond 'a single object'. For a retrieve-by-id tool in a large sibling set it omits the resource identity, the id semantics, and any not-found/permission behavior, leaving the definition materially incomplete.
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?
There is exactly one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. It does not clarify that 'id' is the stakeholder identifier, its format (UUID), or whether it is required, leaving the schema's bare string type to carry the whole load.
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 says only 'Return a single object' without ever naming the resource (an EBIOS RM stakeholder) or stating that it fetches by identifier. The only informative content is a side effect about field masking, so the agent cannot infer purpose from the text alone and must rely on the tool name.
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 indication of when to use this versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_list, _object_retrieve, _cascade_info_retrieve or _chart_data_retrieve. Nothing says it is a by-id single-record read nor what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.